Will America Face the Truth About 9/11?

9/11 Continues to be fascinating, and that story has not been told to the full.


Will America Face the Truth About 9/11?

By Mark H. Gaffney

02/24/07 "ICH" -- - -In June 1, 2001 the US Joint Chiefs of Staff issued a new order regarding cases of aircraft piracy, i.e., hijackings. The new order (CJCSI 3610.01A), signed by Vice Admiral S. A. Fry, Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, canceled the existing order (CJCSI 3610.01) that had been in effect since July 1997. When I learned about this, recently, I became intrigued. The date of the new order, just three months prior to 9/11, seemed too near that fateful day to be mere coincidence. I should mention that I have always been skeptical of the official 9/11 narrative. The June 2001 order was like a red flag drawing attention to an insistent question: Why did the US military alter its hijack policy a few months before 9/11? Why, indeed?

When I first examined the document, which, by the way, is still posted on the internet, my excitement increased.[i] The order states that when hijackings occur the military’s operational commanders at the pentagon and at the North American Aerospace Command (NORAD) must contact the secretary of defense for approval and further instruction. At that time, of course, this was Donald Rumsfeld. Was the new order, therefore, evidence of a policy change made for the purpose of engineering a stand-down on 9/11? This was plausible, assuming that a group of evildoers within the Bush administration wanted a terrorist plot to succeed for their own twisted reasons. And what might those reasons be? Well, obviously, to create the pretext for a much more aggressive US foreign policy that the American people would not otherwise support. We know, for instance, that the plans to invade Afghanistan were already sitting on President Bush’s desk on 9/11, awaiting his signature.

Did the US military achieve a stand-down on 9/11 by means of an ordinary administrative memo? Several prominent 9/11 investigators had already drawn this conclusion, including Jim Marrs, who is a very capable journalist. Marrs discussed the June 1, 2001 pentagon order in his fine book, The Terror Conspiracy. Filmmaker Dylan Avery is another. He mentioned the order in a similar context in his popular video, Loose Change (Second Edition). A third investigator, Webster Griffin Tarpley, did likewise in his book, 9/11 Synthetic Terror, one of the deepest examinations of 9/11 in print.[ii] Although initially I agreed with their conclusion, after studying the document more closely I found reason to change my mind. Fortunately, the previous July 1997 order is still available for download via the internet.[iii]

Close inspection of the two documents, side by side, shows that the previous order also required notification of the secretary of defense in cases of hijackings. In fact, there was almost no change in the language on this point. Obviously, the basic policy remained in effect, and can be summarized as follows: Although operational commanders have the authority to make decisions of the moment in cases of hijackings, they are also required to notify the secretary of defense, who must be kept in the loop, and who may chose to intervene at any time.

Side by side, the two documents are almost identical. But there is one difference. The new order includes an extra passage in the policy section that mentions two new kinds of airborne vehicles, “unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)” and “remotely operated vehicles (ROVs).” The order states that these are to be regarded as “a potential threat to public safety.” But why did two new categories of aerial vehicles require the drafting of a new order, especially since the basic policy did not change? I puzzled over this for some time, until I stumbled upon a news story about the Global Hawk, prompting further investigations. These have convinced me that the June 1, 2001 pentagon order could be one of the keys to what happened on 9/11.

As we shall see, the answer is not obvious. The technology I will now describe certainly was not on my radar screen. Like most Americans I had no clue. I went about my affairs blithely unaware that technological advances were altering our world nearly beyond recognition. While it is true that technology holds amazing potentials to improve our lives, and to free us from drudgery, make no mistake, it can just as easily enslave us. Nor are technology’s most hopeful possibilities likely to be realized so long as its cutting edge remains shrouded in secrecy for reasons of national security–––in my opinion one of the most abused expressions in our language. It’s become clear to this writer that if ordinary citizens do not awaken, and soon, to the insidious dangers that new technologies pose to our freedoms, the faceless individuals and nameless puppeteers who command them will carry the day. In that case the experiment in self-government that began with the drafting of the US Constitution more than 200 years ago will have come to a dark end.

A Cautionary Tale:

The Flight of the Global Hawk

On April 22-23, 2001, just weeks before the pentagon issued the new hijack order, an unmanned aircraft, the RQ-4A US Global Hawk, completed its maiden 7,500 mile flight from Edwards AFB in southern California to Edinburgh AFB in South Australia.[iv] The nonstop 8,600 mile passage across the Pacific took only 22 hours and set an endurance record for an unmanned vehicle. In early June, after a dozen joint-exercises with the Australian military, the drone returned to California. The previous year the Global Hawk made a similar transatlantic run to Europe, where it participated in NATO exercises.

You are probably thinking: So what? What is so special about the Global Hawk? And how does it relate to 9/11? I’ll get to the second question in a moment. Rod Smith, the Australian Global Hawk manager, answered the first when he said: “The aircraft essentially flies itself....from takeoff, right through to landing, and even taxiing off the runway.”[v] The drone follows a preprogrammed flight plan, although ground controllers monitor it and remain in control. The jet-powered craft is 44 feet long, has a wingspan the equivalent of a Boeing 737, and can remain aloft for 42 hours. It flies at extremely high altitudes, up to 65,000 feet, and has a range of 14,000 nautical miles. The name Global Hawk is not a misnomer. The drone truly has a global reach. Its cruising speed is nothing special, about 400 mph, but its ability to reconnoiter vast areas of geography is amazing. In a single flight the bird can surveil an area the size of Illinois: more than 50,000 square miles. It comes equipped with advanced radar, infrared and electro-optical sensors, i.e., cameras that can return up to 1,900 high-resolution images during a single flight.

No doubt, these impressive vitals explain why the US military immediately drafted the Global Hawk for intelligence gathering purposes. The bird flew during Operation Enduring Freedom, i.e., Bush’s October 2001 invasion of Afghanistan; and it subsequently saw wide use in Iraq. During the last year alone Global Hawk drones flew at least 50 combat missions over Iraq and Afghanistan and logged 1,000 hours of flight time. During the summer of 2006 the Israelis used similar technology during their aerial campaign against Lebanon. In fact, the Israelis pioneered the use of drones in 1982 during a previous invasion of their northern neighbor. The US first employed drones in 1983 when Ronald Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada, a small island nation in the Caribbean. According to various reports, Global Hawk surveillance of Iran is ongoing as I write.

Development of the Global Hawk began in 1995, with the first air trials at Edwards AFB in 1998. But ROV technology originated long before this. Dylan Avery’s excellent 9/11 film Loose Change (Second Edition) includes a video segment from a NASA flight test carried out in 1984, also at Edwards AFB. During the 16-hour exercise ground pilots remotely controlled a Boeing 720, guiding it through 10 successful takeoffs, numerous approaches, and 13 landings. The test ended with a pre-planned crash. In fact, there is ample evidence the US military began experimenting with radio-controlled aircraft as early as the 1950s. The military’s use of drones for target practice in war games and military exercises is well known, and has been standard practice for many years.

When Was the Beginning?

In late September 2001, just weeks after the 9/11 attack, George W. Bush mentioned ROV technology while discussing ways to improve airline safety. In a public statement reported by the New York Times Bush promised federal grants for stronger cockpit doors, new transponders that cannot be turned off, and video cameras that will allow a pilot to monitor the passenger section of a commercial jetliner. Notably, Bush also hinted that new technology one day would make it possible for air traffic controllers to land hijacked planes by remote-control. He implied that this helpful technology belonged to the future.[vi]

Yet, there is evidence it may already have existed when Bush spoke, and even before 9/11. Shortly after the September 11, 2001 attack a small Arizona-based high-tech company named KinetX, together with another firm named Cogitek, proposed such a system to the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA). In a white paper the two firms claimed that their National Flight Emergency Response System (NFERS), as they called it, would prevent 9/11-style hijackings in the future. They insisted that a prototype could be up and running within a year. The white paper described NFERS as “the integration of existing technology for the purpose of transferring cockpit operations to a secure ground station in case of an emergency.” The paper states: “It is important to note that the essential technology exists now.” [vii] [my emphasis] According to the KinetX web site, the FAA never responded to their proposal. However, in January 2006 the Boeing company announced the patent for a similar system.[viii] Boeing’s “auto-land system” reportedly involves an onboard processor. Once activated, it overrides the cockpit controls and guides a hijacked plane to an emergency landing. The auto-land system can be preprogramed into the plane’s autopilot, or operated remotely by ground controllers. It can be activated in several different ways, either directly by the pilot during a hijacking in progress, or indirectly by sensors installed in the cockpit door, which would be tripped by forcible entry; or, lastly, by ground controllers via a remote link.

Here’s my point: Was Boeing’s auto-land system truly a new development in 2006? Or: did the aircraft giant merely pull preexisting hardware off the shelf, as KinetX proposed in 2001 with its NFERS system? The pentagon order of June 1, 2001 strongly suggests that from the standpoint of the US military ROV technology had matured by the spring of 2001, even before 9/11. When was the last time the US military developed a new technology after private industry, or even simultaneously with it? It’s well known that military research & development programs always receive the best available resources and expertise. For which reason the military generally leads the way in technology, usually by at least ten years, sometimes by much more. The emergence of the internet is an obvious example. As we know, the US military developed cyberspace many years before it exploded into the civilian sector. It stands to reason ROV technology may have followed a similar path.

This raises disturbing questions. Did George W. Bush wander off his crib sheet in late September 2001 in his remarks about aircraft safety? Did Bush blunder when he mentioned ROV technology in the same breath with 9/11? Surely one does not need a Ph.D. in rocket science to know that what holds for the goose is also true for the gander. Could not the same ROV technology designed to foil hijackers also be used to commit acts of terrorism, such as, flying planes into tall buildings? Certainly it could, depending on who is at the controls. It’s tempting to wonder just how much (or how little) George W. Bush knew (and knows) about September 11. It’s a fair question, and here’s another: Did Bush come within a whisker of giving the game away?

Joe Vialls’ “back door” theory

According to an aeronautical engineer named Joe Vialls, the technology to capture planes via remote control has been around for a very long time. If he is correct, the US military developed the technology as far back as the mid 1970s–––in response to a sharp upsurge in terrorist hijackings during this period. According to Vialls the project involved two American multinationals in collaboration with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The goal was to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft. Vialls claimed the effort succeeded brilliantly in developing the means, first, to listen in on cockpit conversations in a target aircraft; and, second, to take absolute control of the plane’s computerized flight control system by means of a remote channel. The aim was to cut the hijackers out of the control loop, meanwhile, empowering ground controllers to return a hijacked plane to a chosen airport, where police would deal with the terrorists. To be “truly effective,” however, the new technology “had to be completely integrated with all onboard systems.” This could only be achieved by incorporating the system into a new aircraft design. Vialls charged this is exactly what happened. A high-level decision was made and Boeing very quietly included a “back door” into the computer designs for two new commercial planes then on the drawing boards: the 767 and 757. Both planes went into production in the early 1980s.

Vialls shocked even internet users when he posted all of this on his web site in October 2001.[ix] He contended that the system, although designed for the best of intentions, fell prey to a security leak. Somehow the secret computer codes fell into the hands of evildoers within the Bush administration, who surreptitiously used the remote channel on 9/11. Armed with the secret codes–––Vialls charged–––the conspirators activated the hidden channel built into the transponders and simply took over the flight controls. Whether or not the alleged nineteen hijackers were actually on board was uncertain. But the issue clearly was of secondary importance since fanatical Muslims were not flying the planes.

Crucially, on 9/11, not one of the eight commercial pilots and copilots sent the standard signal alerting FAA authorities that a hijacking was in progress.[x] Sending this signal, or “squawking,” as it is called, takes only a few seconds, and is done by activating a cockpit device known as an ELT (emergency locator transmitter). A pilot simply keys-in a four-digit code and the message “I have been hijacked” flashes on the screen at ground control. The fact that none of the pilots or copilots transmitted this standard SOS on 9/11 was suspicious, the first indication to Vialls that the planes were being flown by remote means. Vialls concluded that once the evildoers had commandeered the transponders the pilots lost the ability to transmit. Additional evidence turned up in a video of the last seconds of Flight 175. According to Vialls, the footage is anomalous because it shows the plane executing a maneuver during its final approach that exceeds the normal software limitations of a 767. Boeing jets are designed with liability concerns in mind, as well as passenger safety. Flight control software prevents a pilot from making steep turns that pull substantial “g” forces. Such turns run the risk of injuring passengers, especially the aged and infirm, which could result in costly lawsuits. Since a pilot cannot normally make such a maneuver, this was powerful evidence that the plane was under remote control.



The Critics Respond

Debunkers, of course, had a field day trying to discredit both Vialls and his 9/11 scenario. What is surprising is that, five years later, his ideas continue to have traction despite the debunkers. Let us now discuss the more thoughtful criticisms. Some pointed out that the flight controls on Boeing 767s and 757s, while fully computerized, are not fly-by-wire designs like newer planes, including the Global Hawk. On the contrary, they are mechanical beasts with hydraulically assisted cable and pulley controls. Therefore, according to these critics, a Boeing pilot always has the option of turning “off” the autopilot and flying manually.[xi] One anonymous critic who claims to be a Boeing maintenance technician has argued that even in the worst case a 757 or 767 pilot could simply pull the electrical breakers, shutting down the power supply to the onboard computers. This would allow him to regain control and fly the old fashioned way, that is, by the seat of his pants, though, no doubt, with considerably more difficulty. Such criticisms, I fully acknowledge, may well be correct. The problem is that under the circumstances it’s impossible to evaluate them, without additional information. Unfortunately, short of hacking into Boeing’s corporate files there is no way to determine whether the company did or did not engineer a hidden override system into its 767s and 757s. Nor can Vialls help us, unfortunately, since he passed on more than a year ago.

The story has an intriguing addendum. Vialls also contended that after taking delivery of a fleet of Boeing jetliners in the 1990s officials at Lufthansa airlines made a shocking discovery. By chance, they stumbled onto the hidden ROV system, at which point, according to Vialls, Lufthansa, concerned about the security of its fleet, went to considerable trouble and expense to remove the original flight control system, and replace it with one of German design. Insofar as I know, the story remains unconfirmed. On the other hand, it will not die–––there is yet another twist. In 2003 Andreas von Buelow, a former minister of research and technology in the German government, authored a book, The CIA and September 11, in which he discussed Joe Vialls’ remote control theory and called for a new investigation. Von Buelow also made a stunning charge of his own: that the 9/11 attack was not the work of Islamic extremists, but was an inside job orchestrated by the CIA. As a former high official in the German defense ministry, was Von Buelow privy to the details about Lufthansa’s experience with Boeing? At present, unfortunately, there are many more questions than answers. For which reason I call on Lufthansa and Boeing to come to our assistance by disclosing their corporate records to an independent team of inspectors.

In recent years Andreas von Buelow has not backed away from the controversial opinions expressed in his book. In radio interviews he has said that the “hijacked” planes on 9/11 were most likely guided by some form of remote control. He thinks 9/11 was a black operation carried out by a small group within the US intelligence community, numbering fewer than 50 people.[xii]

The Latency Period Issue

Other critics came at Vialls from a different direction. They claimed that potential 9/11 conspirators would never use ROV technology because of the so called latency period issue. In short, flying planes by remote control involves a troublesome time delay, which makes precision flying difficult if not impossible.[xiii] These critics have cited the astronomical accident rate for drone aircraft–––100 times higher than for manned planes. Take, for instance, another type of US surveillance-and-attack drone known as the Predator. Out of 135 of these unmanned planes delivered and used in military operations, at least 50 have crashed, and 34 others suffered serious accidents.[xiv] Obviously, such numbers do not inspire confidence. For this reason, contend these critics, 9/11 conspirators would have rejected ROV technology out of hand as too unreliable.

The argument sounds plausible, but is easily refuted. A look at the specifications for the Global Hawk shows that there are two different ways to remotely control an aircraft, only one of which involves a time delay. The first is via a remote link, i.e., a communications satellite, which does indeed involve a latency period. The second means of control, however, is direct line-of-sight, and involves no such a thing. Evildoers determined to fly planes into the World Trade Center (WTC) could have easily overcome the latency period issue by setting up a nearby command center, for example, in Building 7 (WTC 7). They may also have needed rooftop cameras or other equipment to provide a real-time video feed. Once controllers in the command center established visual contact, they would have merely switched from the remote link to line-of-sight, and then, would have guided the jetliner in during its final approach. Remember, the final approach was the only place where slop in the controls would matter.

Equipment on the Roof?

It’s curious that in 1993, at the time of the first WTC bombing, dozens of workers climbed to the rooftop where they were rescued by helicopters. But no such exodus occurred on 9/11. Many people trapped on the upper floors did try to reach the roof, but, unfortunately, they could not because someone had locked the exit doors. We know this from cell phone calls made by the victims in the final desperate moments. One can well imagine their horror, after fleeing toxic smoke, heat and flames, only to find there would be no escape. Surely at this point they must have known they were doomed. We were told the doors were locked for security reasons, but this was never fully explained. Was the actual reason more sinister? Yes, perhaps, assuming evildoers had installed cameras and perhaps other equipment atop each tower to supply a direct video feed. In that case the plotters had good reason to lock the doors: to prevent the accidental discovery of their foul plan by some unsuspecting tenant wandering about the roof on his noon lunch break. Another even darker motive may have been to minimize the chance that survivors would live to tell undesirable stories about bombs exploding in the core of the buildings. Due to the smoke and heat, helicopter rescue would have been difficult, but not impossible. Notice, this would also explain the demolition of WTC 7. No doubt, the command center had been equipped with a substantial amount of hardware. Nor could this be removed after the fact without running grave risks. Therefore, WTC 7 had to come down, to destroy the evidence.

The Mystery Plane

As for the pentagon strike, there were multiple reports of a second plane in the sky at the time of the attack. Eyewitnesses described it as a C-130 military transport. They say it closely followed Flight 77, but peeled off after the crash and flew away.[xv] The 9/11 Commission Report mentions this second plane, confirms that it was a military C-130H, and briefly describes its involvement, now a part of the official 9/11 narrative.[xvi] According to the report the C-130H “had just taken off en route to Minnesota.” From another source I learned it departed from nearby Andrews AFB, in Maryland.[xvii] Supposedly, air traffic controllers at Reagan Airport (located south of the pentagon) requested the C-130H pilot to “identify and follow the suspicious aircraft,” presumably Flight 77. I shook my head in disbelief when I read this passage, since when has the FAA or the military used C-130 transports to intercept hostile aircraft? Why indeed was this plane shadowing Flight 77? The strange rendezvous raises questions that the panel should have investigated, but the 9/11 report gives us no further information. Evidently, we are supposed to believe this other plane just happened to be in the vicinity at the time of the attack. The panel’s failure to examine a matter of such obvious importance is the clearest indication that the 9/11 commission was not a serious investigation, but a staged event, like a show trial, whose purpose was not to learn the truth but to give the appearance of an investigation.

As Flight 77 approached the pentagon it reportedly made a sweeping 330 degree turn. Whereupon its pilot–––Hani Hanjour?–––“advanced the throttles to maximum power” and rapidly descended 2,200 feet into the west wing.[xviii] The impact site was “lucky,” as we know, since this portion of the building was undergoing renovation. In fact, the job was only days away from completion. For this reason the number of fatalities was sharply reduced. But wait a minute: Why would real terrorists determined to immolate themselves in a fiery suicide attack go out of their way to inflict the fewest possible casualties, when they could easily have murdered thousands in one fell swoop? Wouldn’t real terrorists try to decapitate the US military by taking out the high command? It was no secret the offices of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the other military brass were located in the east wing, on the opposite side of the building. The alleged hijackers could easily have targeted them simply by crashing into the pentagon roof. Out of 125 victims (not counting the passengers) only one general died.[xix] Many of the fatalities were civilian personnel from the pentagon’s accounting office, a majority of whom were killed. Needless to say, I found all of this peculiar.

Recall that on September 10, 2001 Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld admitted in a public statement that $2.3 trillion in military appropriations had gone missing, i.e., was unaccounted for.[xx] Yet, the following day, on the evening of 9/11, just hours after the attack, indeed, even as fires were still burning in the west wing, Rumsfeld had the chutzpah to go before the Senate Armed Services Committee and berate its chairman Senator Carl Levin for inadequately funding the military.[xxi] The shakedown was extremely effective. Soon after, as we know, Congress passed a $40 billion special appropriations bill for the “war on terrorism,” and, ever since, Congress has essentially handed the pentagon a blank check. All of this happened with hardly a word of protest. Notably, the military windfall also meant sharp funding increases for the US Space Command.

The Ultimate High Ground

As a result, today the US military is forging ahead with plans to weaponize space. True, the basic research and development programs were already in place during the Clinton administration, which funded the Space Command to the tune of about $6 billion annually. The actual figures, of course, are unknown, and undoubtedly are higher since a good deal of this research is classified. Much of it falls within the ‘black’ budget, the actual size of which no one seems to know. How all of this came to pass is extremely important, because it set the stage for 9/11. So, let us quickly review, as briefly as possible.

Space satellites first proved their worth to the US military in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm, when the US drove Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. Their vital communications and surveillance role during the desert campaign led to a policy debate within the Clinton administration about the next phase. The policy question was: Should we weaponize space? Hawkish generals saw this as the shape of the future, and some of them made blunt public statements. In 1996, for example, General Joseph Ashy, who then headed the US Space Command, told Aviation Week & Space Technology that the agenda was “politically sensitive, but it’s going to happen. Some people don’t want to hear this, and it sure isn’t in vogue, but, absolutely, we’re going to fight in space. We’re going to fight from space and we’re going to fight into space.”[xxii] No doubt, Ashy was speaking for many in the pentagon who believe that outer space is the ultimate high ground, from which to dominate events on earth. General Ashy put it this way: “We will engage terrestrial targets someday, ships, airplanes, land targets, from space. We will engage targets in space, from space.” Which, of course, means deploying weapons in space. In 1997 Keith Hall, Clinton’s Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, made a similar point in an address to the National Space Club, when he said: “With regard to space dominance, we have it, we like it, and we’re going to keep it.”[xxiii]

Full Spectrum Dominance

The same candid language can be found in a number of vision documents released by the pentagon during this period. All of them made the case for US control of space. One 1997 document called Vision for 2020 outlined sweeping plans for “full spectrum dominance,” which it defined as “the synergy of space superiority with land, sea and air superiority.”[xxiv] Another 1998 report, The Long Range Plan, much in the same vein, used language replete with phrases like “Control of Space,” “Full Force Integration,” and “Global Engagement.”[xxv] These and other vision papers emphasized the marriage of corporate and military interests.

It’s no wonder that as the pentagon’s R&D programs moved ahead in the 1990s, the international community looked on with growing alarm. Many states feared that the US had violated, or was preparing to violate, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. This was ironic, since for many years the US had been a staunch supporter of the space treaty. Indeed, the US played a vital role in its creation. After the launch of Sputnik in 1957, Washington and Moscow both realized that preventing an arms race in space was in their mutual interest. The 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty barred nuclear tests from space, and the 1967 Outer Space Treaty prohibited weapons of mass destruction. The latter defined space as a neutral sanctuary available to all nations for peaceful uses.



With the disturbing prospect of an arms race in space looming even during the Clinton presidency, in 1999 China and Russia brought a resolution before the United Nations to strengthen the Outer Space Treaty. The resolution called for negotiations to add a provision banning all weapons from space. The vote was nearly unanimous, with 163 nations in favor, and none opposed. However, the US and two other states abstained–––Israel and Micronesia. The following year the UN debated the resolution again, and it passed by the same wide margin. Again, the US abstained. These UN votes were a signal, obvious to everyone except perhaps Americans, who invariably are the last to know what their government is doing, that the world’s lone remaining superpower, in the wake of the Cold War, might be on the verge of flexing its military muscles. The Republican-controlled US Senate had already put the planet on notice in 1998 when it rejected the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTB), which Clinton supported. The near-collapse of the 2000 Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference was another hint that a sea-change was brewing. As we know, the 2005 NPT Review Conference did collapse, after President Bush sent a budgetary request to Congress for nuclear bunker-busters. The move was a blatant signal to the world that the US government was not interested in taking even one meaningful step toward nuclear disarmament, but, in fact, was determined to move in the opposite direction. Bush’s appropriations request was a clear violation of Article VI of the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). No wonder the conference broke up in disarray after failing even to agree on an agenda.

Hawkish generals in the pentagon, including Richard Myers and Ralph Eberhart, both former chiefs of the US Space Command, viewed these developments through their own dark lens. Pentagon hawks strongly opposed the Test Ban, even though it would have locked the US into a position of nuclear superiority, since it also “threatened” to tie America’s hands–––in their view a disaster. They believed the US must be unconstrained in the use of its power. The generals also chaffed under Clinton’s lackluster, i.e., centrist, performance in foreign policy. But probably their biggest beef was his restraint on space. Though Clinton allowed R&D to move ahead, he remained committed to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, and so, forbade the deployment of space weapons. Hawks found this unacceptable, because they believed the US had to move quickly and decisively to take control of the high ground. For only by consolidating its preeminent position could the US thwart all challengers in the foreseeable future.



Hawks and Neo Cons:

A Marriage of Convenience



Not surprisingly, pentagon hawks welcomed the new Bush administration. After all, the neo cons shared many of the same goals. In 1999 the neo cons had boldly released their own vision document, Rebuilding America’s Defenses. The paper, which can still be downloaded from the internet, calls for the “transformation” of US military forces, and emphasizes the need to control outer space.[xxvi] The document mentions with regret that most Americans do not favor the aggressive use of US military power in the world. For this reason–––the document states–––the necessary changes will proceed slowly, that is, barring some new external threat capable of galvanizing the nation, such as another Pearl Harbor. Here, the neo cons may have borrowed a page from Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter. In his influential 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski had noted with similar frustration and puzzlement this inability of Americans to recognize the imperial virtues. Brzezinski had argued anyway that America must somehow overcome this “weakness” of character and fulfill its historic destiny as global superpower.



Everything Bush and the neo cons have done closely followed this script. A report released by Donald Rumsfeld in January 2001 laid out the plans in more detail. The report warned that US intelligence satellites were vulnerable to a “space Pearl Harbor,” i.e., a sneak attack. Rumsfeld also favored scrapping the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty (ABM), which he regarded as an impediment to “transformation.”[xxvii] Sure enough, before year’s end President G.W. Bush announced the termination of the ABM treaty, paving the way for his so-called missile defense initiative (SDI). Bush’s action prompted a 2002 lawsuit by 33 members of Congress led by Dennis Kucinich (D - Ohio), who charged that Bush’s unilateral action was illegal, a violation of Article II, section 2 of the US Constitution, which invests Congress, not the executive, with the authority to make /abrogate international treaties. By canceling a treaty without the assent of Congress Bush assumed the powers of a dictator.[xxviii]



In Your Face From Outer Space



In fact, Bush misled the nation about SDI, since missile defense of the continental US was only one part of the package. SDI’s broader goal was to secure American global economic “interests and investments.” The neo con logic went as follows: In a world of increasing competition for scarce resources the US military must be prepared to fend off challenges by have-not nations and so called rogue states; and this will entail denying to others the use of space. Why? Simple: to maintain US supremacy–––currently unrivaled. Moreover, and this is crucial, the doctrine also insists that the US has the right to preemptively attack those who seek not to defeat the US, but simply to deter US military power. Toward these ends the US Space Command would eventually deploy offensive weapons such as space-based lasers and kinetic energy weapons, possibly powered by nuclear reactors. By the way, the motto of the US Space Warfare Center, one of the labs where the US conducts research, is: “In Your Face From Outer Space.” This scrap of Ramboesque doggerel is probably a true glimpse of the future, if Americans don’t soon retake control over their government.



The march to the right continued. In 2002 the Department of Defense (DoD) merged the US Space Command with STRATCOM, the Strategic Command (the old Strategic Air Command, or SAC). The logic was simple. The pursuit of full spectrum dominance now required a unified command structure.



In 2005 the US changed its vote at the UN. By now, the space treaty resolution had become an annual event. This time, however, instead of abstaining as in previous years, the US cast the lone “No.”[xxix] It was a historic shift in policy, yet, insofar as I am aware it went unreported in the sleepy US press.



More recently, in August 2006, President Bush authorized a formal statement of US space policy, the first official redraft since 1996. The declassified portion of the document states that in the future the US will reject all arms control agreements that might in any way constrain US flexibility in space.[xxx]

The Chinese Response

All of these developments surely explain the recent brouhaha with China. On January 11, 2007 the Chinese destroyed one of their own aging satellites with a ballistic missile, prompting outrage in Washington and protests from half a dozen other nations.[xxxi] The Chinese exercise was a clear escalation from last summer when, according to reports, the Chinese “painted” a US satellite using a ground-based laser. Not surprisingly, as a result, conservatives are now calling on Bush to take the needed steps to defend US satellites; which, unfortunately, will almost certainly involve deploying weapons in space–––a huge step and a huge mistake, since precipitate action can only make matters worse. While I agree that the recent incidents are alarming, it does not follow that China is an emerging threat. The Chinese are merely responding to what the US is already doing. Two years ago Hui Zhang, a China expert at Harvard, cautioned that the Chinese regard Bush’s SDI program as a serious threat to their national security.[xxxii] The Chinese are worried that the US is trying to achieve a first-strike nuclear capability. They fear that if the US succeeds in neutralizing China’s modest nuclear deterrent (which numbers 20-30 ICBMs), Washington will then be able to use its military prowess to blackmail Beijing, hence, interfere in China’s internal affairs. From China’s standpoint the issue is one of national sovereignty. The Russians have similar concerns, and according to Dr. Helen Caldicott have taken extraordinary measures to preserve their deterrent. In an address at the 2006 Perdana Global Peace Forum, Dr. Caldicott claimed that the Russians have installed a special doomsday facility in the Ural Mountains–––to be activated at the push of a button. Should a US nuclear surprise attack destroy Moscow, decapitating the Russian government, a special communications missile will launch and transmit the attack code to all surviving Russian ICBMs, which will then launch automatically. The dead Russian leadership thus will reach out from the grave to exact nuclear retribution on America.

Unfortunately, both China and Russia have good reason to worry. In 2006 two American professors warned that under Bush the US has indeed been moving toward a first-strike nuclear advantage, and already has come perilously close.[xxxiii] Even as I write the Bush administration is moving ahead with the most sweeping realignment of the US nuclear force structure since the Cold War.[xxxiv]

SDI: back to the future

The actions of the Bush administration, especially its SDI program, have made the world a much more unstable place. Missile defense systems have never been proven effective in principle, and Bush’s SDI program is no different. For this reason the vast expenditures that are involved amount to a huge corporate boondogle–––a swindle of the American taxpayer. Even if the US eventually deploys such a system, it will have no defensive value, since it could easily be overwhelmed. For this reason, as critics have charged, such a system only “makes sense” as part of a nuclear first-strike capability, for the purpose of staving off a much diminished retaliatory response. This is the reason missile defense systems are so destabilizing. Ironically, this was the same argument, no less valid today, that persuaded Washington and Moscow to draft the 1972 ABM Treaty in the first place. The treaty banned most missile defense systems. The difference in 2007, of course, is that the Soviet Union is no more. Evidently the neo cons now feel unencumbered to pursue their mad fantasies of a US global imperium, backed up by the threat of nuclear first use.



After the recent incident, Liu Jianchao, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson, emphasized that “China opposes the weaponization of space and an arms race in space.” Jianchao went on: “What needs to be stressed is that China has always advocated the peaceful use of space.”[xxxv] He was not lying. Since 2002 China and Russia have attempted to persuade the Bush administration to sit down and negotiate a new treaty that would ban all weapons from space. Such a treaty makes excellent sense, and would benefit all nations, including the US, for obvious reasons. Verification would present no insuperable problems. In fact, the more nations that possess orbiting intelligence satellites the more secure the world will become, since everyone will be monitoring everyone else. The basic issue is quite simple and is understood around the world, everywhere, that is, except here in the US. The Bush administration has obstinately refused to negotiate–––just as it has refused to talk in the cases of Iran, North Korea, the Palestinians, the International Tribunal, the Kyoto protocols, on and on.

Clearly, the neo cons and hawkish generals have set the United States on a collision course not only with China and Russia, but, indeed, with every nation that has legitimate scientific and economic interests in space. The recent Chinese test is a warning of what the future will hold if the US does not soon join with the world community in banning weapons from the next frontier. Yet, how many Americans understand these issues? Few, I would bet. And even fewer understand the connection with 9/11, the pivotal event that spawned the Bush doctrines of perpetual warfare and the weaponization of space. Looking back in 2004, General Peter Schoomaker, Army Chief of Staff, had reason to feel smug when he pointed out that 9/11 had “a huge silver lining.”[xxxvi] It certainly did–––for some.

Yes, Generals Do Lie

I have shown that pentagon hawks and neo cons share a grand strategy that is inimical to the greater good. For which reason their global agenda was, from a political standpoint, virtually unobtainable through functioning democratic institutions. This establishes a powerful motive. But does it follow that they conspired to subvert democracy to achieve their sweeping goals? Were they complicit in 9/11? Or, worse: did they stage the attack? Such a conclusion, of course, would not necessarily follow–––were it not for the incriminating fact that Generals Eberhart and Myers lied to the 9/11 Commission, and to Congress. This is not just my opinion. It was the opinion of various members of the 9/11 Commission. On August 2, 2006 the Washington Post reported that “...staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the pentagon’s initial story of how it reacted to the terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public, rather than a reflection of the fog of war. Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of the tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.”[xxxvii] Thomas H. Kean, panel chairman, told the Post: “We, to this day, don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us. It was just so far from the truth.” John Farmer, another member of the panel, who happened to be a former New Jersey attorney general, described his gut reaction: “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described.” Unfortunately, the Post story quickly dropped out of the news and was forgotten. Nor is the episode recounted in the 9/11 Commission Report, which goes to great lengths to exonerate the generals of any wrongdoing. Indeed, the final report is a carefully sanitized work of the imagination, with credit going to Philip Zelikow, a Bush insider who stage-managed the 9/11 investigation from start to finish. When Zelikow’s close ties to Condeleeza Rice were revealed in testimony before the commission, the families of the 9/11 victims demanded his resignation, but to no avail. Zelikow and his staff not only controlled the panel’s schedule and agenda, and the flow of information to panel members, they also oversaw the preparation of the final report, hence, made key decisions about what to include and what to leave out.[xxxviii] We know, additionally, that Zelikow sent the draft report to the White House for a final “proofing.” This was the devil’s bargain finagled in return for Bush’s “cooperation.” For all of these reasons the 9/11 Commission was in no truthful sense an independent body. We should not be surprised that its final product is an impeccably scrubbed rendition of the official 9/11 narrative. This Phil Zelikow dutifully accomplished on behalf of his boss, G.W. Bush, by smoothing over impossible contradictions through the practiced arts of deletion and deception.

The NORAD Tapes

The shock of panel members cited above was in reaction to new evidence that came to light, late in the investigation. The evidence was in the form of certain NORAD audio tapes, which for many months the government had refused to hand over. Thanks to a court order, however, the panel eventually obtained the tapes, which revealed serious discrepancies in the generals’ earlier testimony, given in May 2003. It goes without saying that the panel should immediately have subjected these tapes to exhaustive forensic analysis, to authenticate them, that is, to verify that they had not been retouched. The 9/11 report makes no mention of any vetting process, however, and, unfortunately, we must conclude it wasn’t done. This means that the procedures of forensic analysis which are routine in ordinary felony cases of murder and larceny were deemed unnecessary in the case of the greatest crime in US history. Such a glaring departure from procedures usually taken for granted in criminal investigations fatally undermines the 9/11 commission’s final report. Indeed, the omission is so grossly negligent it should have sparked an immediate public outcry. But there was not even a peep. The US media neglected to cover the story. Have we sunk to the level that we will swallow anything?

Based on what we currently know, there is every reason to suspect that the NORAD tapes were doctored before their release. Why would the pentagon do this? Obviously, to effect damage control. As embarrassing as the “new” information on the tapes turned out to be, the truth might have been infinitely more damaging. The pentagon had already changed its story, once. According to the original version of events, as reported by the press on September 11, 2001, NORAD quite simply failed to intercept any of the hijacked planes on 9/11. NORAD failed to put a fighter in the sky to defend the nation’s capital for nearly 90 minutes. Nor did this happen until after the pentagon had been hit. Two days later, General Richard Myers, acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, affirmed this version of events in testimony given on Capitol Hill. At which point it became clear that the pentagon had a serious problem on its hands. The facts were not only evidence of incompetence at the highest level, they were suspicious on their face because they smacked of a stand-down; which, if true, was treason. Within days the pentagon amended its story to allay such concerns. According to 9/11 panel member Bob Kerrey, this occurred after NORAD briefed the president on September 17, 2001.[xxxix] Kerrey’s point was that the White House instructed the pentagon to cover its tracks.

The following day, on September 18, 2001, the pentagon announced a new 9/11 timeline, essentially blaming the FAA for its failure to inform NORAD about the hijacked planes in a timely manner.[xl] For this reason–––we were told–––NORAD could not respond effectively on 9/11. This second account stood for three years, but had serious problems of its own. Not the least of which is that the story was improbable. It so happens that scrambling fighters is a frequent and routine practice. If a commercial or private aircraft deviates from its scheduled flight path by as little as two miles, or if there is a loss of radio contact, or if the plane’s transponder stops transmitting, FAA flight controllers will first attempt to contact the pilot and remedy the problem. However, if this fails the FAA is required to contact NORAD for assistance. If there is any doubt, the FAA’s policy is to assume the worst, in other words, an emergency.[xli] The FAA made 67 such requests of NORAD during one nine-month period alone, from September 2000 to June 2001, and in every single case NORAD responded by scrambling planes, without a hitch.[xlii] That’s an average of about two scrambles a week, more than 100 per year. The procedure, in short, is routine. It’s done all the time.

Why then, the sudden breakdown on 9/11, when for no apparent reason FAA controllers began to behave like a bunch of incompetent morons? Another problem with the pentagon’s account is that it is difficult to reconcile with the high degree of competence and professionalism the FAA otherwise displayed on 9/11, when the agency successfully shut down the entire US air traffic system in about three hours. During this period, FAA officials grounded 4,500 commercial and private aircraft without a single mishap. The feat was unprecedented, and all the more impressive given the conditions of extreme duress on 9/11. As the commission itself admits in its report, the FAA performed “flawlessly.”[xliii] Yet, we are expected to believe this same agency fumbled a simple phone hand-off to NORAD four times in succession on the same morning? Moreover, even if we assume that the pentagon’s version of events was correct, there is an added problem: Arguably there was still sufficient time to intercept three of the four “hijacked” planes, Flight 175 (which hit the south tower), Flight 77 (which hit the pentagon) and Flight 93 (which crashed near Shanksville).[xliv] The time from scramble-to-intercept normally takes no more than about 10 minutes.

The Phantom Plane

To remedy these problems, in July 2004 the 9/11 Commission introduced a third version of the story that put the blame even more emphatically on the FAA. The panel “corrected” the timeline, in effect, declaring that the FAA wasn’t merely late in making the hand-off, no, it failed altogether. This absolved the higher ups at NORAD and the pentagon of any serious negligence. The report mildly rebukes the military, but even this slap of the wrist is not aimed at the generals, but rather, at the scrambled fighter pilots, who, we are told, misunderstood their assignment, or somehow got their signals crossed.

The new version can be summed up as follows: NORAD couldn’t respond effectively on 9/11 because it had no warning that Flights 175, 77 and 93 had been hijacked. As for Flight 11, get a grip, because what I’m going to tell you is so bizarre you probably won’t believe it. Neither did it. But I am not pulling your leg. The panel’s new and revised timeline is supposedly based on a previously unknown transmission, found on the NORAD tapes. This transmission allegedly proves that in the one case where the FAA did alert NORAD, i.e., the case of Flight 11, the FAA got it wrong and passed incorrect information. This sent NORAD on a wild goose chase after a nonexistent plane. Someone at the FAA mistakenly concluded that Flight 11 was still in the air–––did not hit the WTC–––and was heading south toward Washington. Based on this false information, NORAD scrambled jets from Langley Air Force Base, near Hampton, Virginia, to intercept Flight 11, now deemed a threat to Washington. The fighters were armed, and the intercept was supposed to happen near Baltimore. This, we are told, explains why there were no fighters available to defend the nation’s capital when Flight 77 mysteriously appeared on the radar screens just six miles SW of Washington. By then, of course, it was too late. Oh, and by the way, when the error was finally discovered and the fighters were rerouted to the capital, the military learned, to everyone’s great surprise, that the jets were NOT were they were supposed to be, i.e., near Baltimore. No, they were out over the Atlantic Ocean flying in circles in a holding pattern, at least 150 miles from Washington.[xlv] By the way, a similar mix-up occurred in the case of the fighters scrambled from Otis AFB on Cape Cod to defend New York City. Instead of patrolling the skies over Manhattan, they ended up in a holding pattern off Long Island, more than 115 miles away![xlvi]

This whopper is the third (and now official) version of events as presented in the 9/11 Commission Report. Unfortunately, since we have no assurance the NORAD tapes were vetted we can have no confidence in their authenticity, and, it follows, no confidence in this “corrected” story. Beyond this fundamental problem, the revised timeline is not credible for many reasons. For example, there is powerful evidence that the FAA never lost track of Flight 11 on the morning of September 11, 2001. According to multiple reports, air controllers tracked Flight 11 on radar all the way to the World Trade Center, and were well aware it had crashed.[xlvii] For example, Boston flight controller Mark Hodgkins later said, “I watched the target of American 11 the whole way down.”[xlviii] This flatly contradicts the official story.

The 9/11 report also fails to provide even one checkable source substantiating the existence of the phantom plane. The report claims that the story was corroborated “from taped conversations at FAA centers, contemporaneous logs compiled at NEADS [the Northeast sector of NORAD], Continental Region headquarters, and NORAD; and other records.”[xlix] All of which sounds impressive, but where are these transcripts and records? They do not appear in the final report, nor have they been made public. Without a verifiable source, why should we believe the panel?

Moreover, after mentioning these sources the report immediately contradicts itself by conceding that it “was unable to find the source of this mistaken FAA information [that Flight 11 was still airborne]”[l] No source? What then, are the alleged records cited above? The report never resolves this inconsistency. Worse, it contradicts itself again by admitting that the investigation was unable to find a single reference to the phantom plane in any “public timeline or statement issued by the FAA or Department of Defense.”[li] These admissions do nothing to boost our confidence. On the contrary, they fuel our suspicions. Perhaps the phantom plane does not appear in any of the timelines for the simple reason that the story is a complete fabrication. Certainly the generals did not breathe one word about the phantom plane during their previous testimony before the 9/11 panel in May 2003. This would explain NORAD General Larry Arnold’s embarrassing moments before the panel in 2004, the day of his final appearance, when panel members had to coach him about the phantom plane to help him “remember.”[lii] No wonder the commissioners were shocked and outraged, as reported by the Washington Post, the story I cited above. Shock would certainly be my reaction if I learned that someone had deceived me. Of course, thanks to Phil Zelikow’s editing skills the final report makes no mention of any of this. Instead, we learn that NORAD’s earlier account was merely “incorrect.”[liii] In the absence of verifiable evidence, however, should we believe the report? I think not. In fact, there is every reason to suspect that Phillip Zelikow and his team participated in the deception.

Let us be very clear. The pentagon’s account was not merely “incorrect,” it was a lie. This was the conclusion of Senator Mark Dayton (D -MN), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who after reading the just released 9/11 Commission Report accused the pentagon of the “most gross incompetence and dereliction of responsibility and negligence that I’ve ever witnessed in the public sector.” According to Dayton, the generals “lied to the American people, they lied to Congress, and they lied to your 9/11 Commission.”[liv] Of course, Sen. Dayton was laboring under the belief that the military lied to conceal its incompetence. But what if the motive was quite different? What if the generals lied to conceal their complicity in the 9/11 attack–––or their guilty role in staging it? That would explain their unreserved acceptance of the new timeline, as well as their previous “incorrect” testimony.

There is no doubt that the generals lied about Flight 93 when they insisted it crashed near Shanksville, PA, since overwhelming evidence indicates the US military shot down the plane. The official story is a eulogy for dead passengers who, we are told, bravely sacrificed their lives to save Washington. It all sounds so patriotic, but wait a moment. Have we forgotten our Greek drama and our Shakespeare? Effusive flattery and praise for murdered victims has long been a staple in high crimes involving treachery. (The king is dead. Long live the king!) Something about this threadbare tale is just not right. It stinks of self-serving artifice. It is also convincingly refuted by the pieces of Flight 93 that were found scattered over at least six square miles, and by the conspicuous absence of wreckage at the alleged crash site. And what of the dozens of local eyewitnesses who reported evidence of a midair explosion? Were they all high on psycho-tropic drugs? The plane was carrying bags of mail, which reportedly fell like confetti. David Ray Griffin has covered this body of evidence very thoroughly in his able study of the 9/11 report, and there is no need to review the details, here.[lv]

The generals also lied about NORAD when they claimed that its mission was solely to defend against external threats. For which reason–––we were told–––NORAD was blind on 9/11. General Eberhart gave this lame excuse during his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, and General Myers repeated it to the 9/11 Commission. On that occasion Myers said: “We were looking outward. We did not have the situational awareness inward because we did not have the radar coverage.”[lvi] One of the 9/11 panel’s (few) finer moments occurred when member Jamie Gorelick rose to the occasion and challenged Myers on this point. Gorelick, a former counsel to the Department of Defense, correctly pointed out that the NORAD charter says no such thing. In fact, NORAD is charged with “control of the airspace above the domestic US” in addition to defending against external threats. Yet, incredibly, the final report obscures the significance of Gorelick’s important point, and meekly takes the general at his word.

The generals also lied when they claimed that NORAD could not track the hijacked planes on 9/11 after the transponders went off because of antiquated 1970-1980’s era radar equipment. Every member of the commission should have erupted with outrage at this brazen lie, since even during the Cold War NORAD’s primary radar was fully capable of tracking hundreds of planes or missiles simultaneously over the continental US.

The 9/11 panel should have vigorously pursued this vital question. But, once again, incredibly, they unreservedly accepted the pentagon’s explanation; and so does the final report.

The Botched Langley Scramble

The 9/11 commission reached its all time low, however, in its handling of the fiasco of the scrambled pilots. The report suggests that the lead pilot from Langley misunderstood his orders.[lvii] The report contradicts itself, however, because another passage concedes that the pilot was never briefed. As the pilot himself explained: “I reverted to the Russian threat,” meaning that in the absence of an order he reverted to “plan B”, a default or backup order.[lviii] This explains the holding pattern over the Atlantic Ocean. (Were the fighters from Otis flying in circles off Long Island for a similar reason?) But why would the panel fault the pilot? The issuance of orders is not the responsibility of the pilot, but the commanding officer. Evidently, the 9/11 panel members had never heard of a thing called the chain of command. Here was a golden opportunity to find the truth. The key to what happened on 9/11 lay within reach. All the panel had to do was interrogate the pilots closely and trace the orders (or lack of them) up the food chain. But where are the transcripts of these crucial interviews with the pilots? Conducted in private, they are conspicuously absent from the 9/11 report. Nor have they been made public. Why not? There can be only one reason: to shield the guilty, i.e., certain high-ranking officers, from scrutiny and accountability.

Incredibly, the report also faults the FAA for the botched scramble.[lix] This would pass the laugh test, were the matter not so grave, since we know that once the FAA makes a phone hand-off to NORAD in such cases, the responsibility for the intercept then rests with the military. In short, the fighters scrambled on 9/11 were under NORAD’s control, not the FAA’s. This statement in the report is sheer obfuscation, and, given the panel’s mandate “to provide the fullest possible account,” amounts to malfeasance. There’s no other word for it.

Of course, an evildoer familiar with NORAD’s radar system would have known its weaknesses, and how to exploit them. This might explain why honest technicians at NORAD were confused on September 11 by phony blips on their radar screens, blips generated as a result of military drills. We know that at least 10 and as many as 15 such exercises were underway on the morning of the attack.[lx] Fighters had been dispatched to northern Canada, to Iceland, and to North Carolina, sharply reducing the number available for scramble in the event of a real emergency. The 9/11 Commission Report mentions several of the drills, but studiously avoids delving into them. This is very strange, since at least one of the exercises involved crashing a hijacked plane into a building. The panel should have investigated the drills, and brought the facts to light, but it chose not to go there. More serious omissions.

The panel also failed to explain why fighters were not on highest alert at Andrews Air Force Base, located just 10 miles from the Capitol. The base has always been Washington’s port of exit/entry for US presidents and diplomats. Three squadrons of fighters are based at Andrews, and their role has always been to defend the nation’s capital. One of these squadrons even boasted on its web site that its mission was to “provide combat units in the highest possible state of readiness.”[lxi] This particular squadron was away in North Carolina on 9/11, involved in a drill. But what about the other two? Inexplicably, the 9/11 panel failed to explore this question. Curiously, on September 12, 2001, the day after the attack, someone altered the squadron’s web site, amending the above-cited passage to reflect a lower state of readiness. Was this a blatant attempt to destroy evidence of a stand-down?[lxii]

Did VP Cheney Order a Stand-Down?

The most compelling evidence of a stand-down, however, came to light quite unexpectedly during the 9/11 Commission hearings. Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta told the panel how, at 9: 20 AM on September 11, he entered the command center located under the White House, where he joined Vice President Cheney, who was already present. A few minutes later Mineta overheard an exchange, but failed to comprehend its significance. On May 23, 2003 Mineta told the commission what happened:

MR. MINETA: There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, “The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to, “The plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the vice president, “Do the orders still stand?” And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?” Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant. And --

MR. HAMILTON: The flight you're referring to is the --

MR. MINETA: The flight that came into the Pentagon.[lxiii]

Mineta told the panel he believed the vice president had given an order to shoot down Flight 77. But, of course, this interpretation makes absolutely no sense. Given the context, plus the fact that the plane was not shot down, the exchange can only refer to a stand-down order. The technician was obviously tracking the incoming plane on radar. Notice, this means the presidential command center was equipped with a real-time radar link to the FAA and NORAD. This is not mere conjecture. The link was confirmed by Richard A. Clark, counterintelligence czar, in his book Against All Enemies.[lxiv] According to Clark the Secret Service was fully in the loop. So we see that Norman Mineta’s testimony flatly contradicts the official explanation that the pentagon was not informed about Flight 77. It also places Cheney at the center of everything, disputing the official story that the vice president did not arrive at the command center until much later. Obviously, the timeline presented in the 9/11 Commission Report is a fabrication designed to distance Cheney from events, hence, to absolve him of any responsibility. Not surprisingly, Mineta’s explosive testimony is nowhere to be found in the 9/11 report.

The Pentagon Controversy

Controversy surrounds the attack on the pentagon, and for good reason, because of the anomalous nature of the evidence. Notably, the conspicuous absence of visible wreckage has led many to conclude that something other than a Boeing 757 hit the building. In the process of reviewing the case, however, I was surprised to discover that, contrary to what many people believe, some wreckage was indeed recovered, mainly from within the building. Several of these parts have been positively identified, and they appear to be a match for a Boeing 757.[lxv] With regard to the crash, we now understand why the exterior windows near the impact zone did not shatter: because they were made of 2 inch-thick blast-resistant material.[lxvi] I suspect that the special design characteristics of the exterior blast wall in this hardened section of the building might similarly explain the small size of the entry hole. Of course, the debate on this will continue, as well it should. Many questions remain. I only hope, meanwhile, that our differences do not distract us from the big picture. It is quite possible that the government has withheld the security camera videos confiscated from the CITGO station on Washington Boulevard (across the street from the pentagon), from the roof of the nearby Sheraton Hotel, from the highway department, and from the pentagon itself, NOT because this footage would show a missile or a smaller plane, but for a very different reason. The videos might reveal that no pilot could possibly have flown the plane that hit the pentagon. In short, the footage may show that the steep banking turn made by Flight 77 exceeded the software limitations built-into Boeing 757 flight-controls. Which would be conclusive evidence that Flight 77 was being flown by remote control.

I will ask, again: Why was a military C-130H in the sky near the pentagon on 9/11? Was this transport plane in fact an airborne control center, outfitted with cameras and ROV hardware? And was it mere coincidence that the final tally of victims included a majority of the pentagon’s accounting staff? Or, do we discern here the faint but unmistakable imprint of a deliberate and cunning hand? Was the accounting office in the west wing sacrificed because its pecuniary staff were deemed nonessential, hence, expendable? What better way to scotch the DoD’s books than by targeting the number-crunchers, thereby mooting democratic oversight far into the future? That would imply a contempt for democratic principles and the separation of powers that is almost unspeakable.

The Other Mystery Plane

This brings us, finally, to the coup de grace. On September 11, 2001 CNN Live reported a second large plane over Washington. It circled high above the White House. This report is very strange because, remember, we are talking about the most tightly restricted airspace on the planet. With a terrorist attack known to be in progress, the only planes that should have been on patrol over Washington were F-15 and F-16 fighters, for the purpose of defending the capital. In fact, fighters should have been ordered up from the first indication of a multiple hijacking. Yet, Washington lay completely exposed. Is it really believable that this was solely the result of bungling by the FAA? Or, that it happened because a lead pilot misunderstood his orders? The 9/11 commission should have thoroughly investigated this important sighting of a second large plane over Washington. But, of course, the panel did nothing of the kind. Yet another omission.



Why was this other plane circling above the White House? Was this another control center, awaiting the arrival of Flight 93 in order to guide it into the Capitol building? A guided crash would likely have killed many Congressmen (and Congresswomen) and Senators, crippling our government. Best-selling author Tom Clancy described such a scenario in a 1994 novel. In the story terrorists fly a radio-controlled plane into the Capitol. The following year, Senator Sam Nunn described this as “not farfetched” in an article featured on the cover of Time magazine.



Nunn had it exactly right. A strike on the Capitol would have plunged the US into the deepest Constitutional crisis in our history, and might well have occasioned the imposition of martial law. Was this the attacker’s ultimate objective, all along? In short, was the 9/11 attack a new kind of coup d’etat, as Webster Tarpley has suggested, for the purpose of abrogating the legal framework of our nation, i.e., the US Constitution?[lxvii] Such a thought is scary off the charts, but is entirely plausible. We would do well to ponder how close we may have come to such a nightmare.

Did the last part of the gambit fail only because of dumb luck? We know Flight 93 was delayed at Newark airport due to heavy runway traffic, and departed 42 minutes late.[lxviii] Did this unforeseen wrinkle compel the evildoers to scrub the last and most ambitious part of their plan? An unopposed “terrorist” crash so late in the morning would have been impossible to explain in terms of FAA incompetence or pilot error, and would have aroused immediate suspicion. Did someone give the order to shoot down Flight 93 for this reason? Something else might have gone wrong, as well. Perhaps the passengers did gain control of the cockpit in the final moments. Assuming that 9/11 was an inside job, they could not be allowed to survive. This would explain why the pentagon adamantly insists that the passengers themselves crashed Flight 93. The departure of Flight 77 from Dulles was also late, but only by 10 minutes, not late enough to abort the pentagon strike, but even so, late enough to threaten the cover story and expose the stand-down. This would explain the urgent need for the hastily revised second timeline announced on September 18, 2001, and, when that failed, the more calculated third rendition in the 9/11 report.

Conclusion

It’s understandable that many Americans deeply resist the scenario I have just described. Most have a difficult time wrapping their mind around something so big, so shocking, and so evil. To think that a group within our own government would do this to us is almost incomprehensible. But the most frightening thing of all is that it’s not only possible, it’s probable. Adolf Hitler well understood and was perfectly willing to exploit this Achilles heal of society. In Mein Kampf he wrote that “the broad mass of a nation....will more easily fall victim to a big lie than a small one.”[lxix] How strange that a psychopath like Hitler saw so deeply into human nature. Are we not facing a similar phenomenon today in America? None of our countrymen were fooled by Bill Clinton’s trivial lie that he did not inhale a marijuana cigarette, or his denial of sex with Monica Lewinsky. Yet, most of us internalized a vastly bigger lie, without a second thought, the no less transparent 9/11 narrative. Human psychology has changed little. Must history now also repeat and disgorge itself upon us, indeed, on an even greater scale? If Americans fail to confront the truth about 9/11, what is to prevent it?

Our nation and the world will never be secure until the conspirators who staged the 9/11 attack are brought to justice. We must therefore insist that the Democratically controlled Congress immediately launch a new and truly independent 9/11 investigation, one that is non-partisan, adequately funded, and empowered with the authority to subpoena witnesses and evidence. The pentagon security videos and the black boxes, currently being withheld, may hold the answers.

If we have the courage to face the fact that our nation has descended into a swamp of corruption and evil, perhaps we can still salvage the future for ourselves and our children. We should draw strength from the knowledge that the 9/11 nightmare, bad as it was, might have been even worse. So long as freedom lives we can choose to be masters of our fate. In the coming days, let us choose well.

Mark H. Gaffney’s first book, Dimona the Third Temple (1989), was a pioneering study of the Israeli nuclear weapons program. Mark’s latest is Gnostic Secrets of the Naassenes (2004). Mark can be reached for comment at markhgaffney@earthlink.net Visit his web site at

[i] The June 1, 2001 order can be downloaded at www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

[i] Webster Griffin Tarpley, 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA, Progressive Press, 2006, p. 200.
[ii] The July 1997 order can be downloaded at www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01.pdf

[ii] Several excellent web sites are recommended. http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/global_hawk.htm

http://www.airforce-technology.com/project_printable.asp?PROJECTID=1280
[iii] “Robot plane flies Pacific unmanned,” ITN News, posted at http://web.archive.org/web/20010707000937/http://itn.co.uk/news/20010424/world/05robotplane.shtm
[iv] New York Times, September 28, 2001.
[v] cited in Jim Marrs, The Terror Conspiracy, Disinformation Company Ltd., 2006, p. 137.
[vi] John Croft, “Diagrams: Boeing patents anti-terrorism auto-land system for hijacked planes,” posted at http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/12/01/210869/diagrams-boeing-patents-anti-terrorism-auto-land-system-for-hijacked.html
[vii] The page has been archived at http://geocities.com/mknemesis/homerun.html
[viii] This was reported by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on 911. “Government Official Has New Evidence Regarding Hijacked Airlines,” CNN Live Event/Special, September 11, 2001, 23:52 ET. Posted at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/se.07.html
[ix] The following site is home to a group of the most indefatigable debunkers on the internet: http://911myths.com/html/remote_control.html
[x] An audio file of one of these interviews is available at http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/200406vonbuelow.htm
[xi] For an interesting discussion and additional sources go to: http://911myths.com/html/remote_control.html

[xi] This was reported by the Wall Street Journal, online edition. Go to: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115491642950528436.html?mod=todays_us_marketplace
[xii] At least eleven eyewitnesses saw a C-130 flying behind the American Airlines plane. http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/witnesses.html
[xiii] Thomas Kean, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, authorized edition, New York, W. W. Norton, 2004, p. 25-26.
[xiv] Matthew L. Wald and Kevin Sack, “The Tapes: ‘We have some planes,’ Hijacker Told Controller,” New York Times, October 16, 2001.
[xv] The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 9-10.
[xvi] The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 314.
[xvii] “The War on Waste: Rumsfeld : The Pentagon cannot account for $2.3 Trillion, CBS News, September 10, 2001. See the video at http://benfrank.net/patriots/news/national/pentagon_missing_trillions
[xviii] Department of Defense News Briefing on the Pentagon Attack, cited in David Ray Griffin’s The New Pearl Harbor, Northhampton, Olive Branch Press, 2004, p. 100.
[xix] Aviation Week and Space Technology, August 5, 1996.
[xx] cited by Karl Grossman, “Nukes in Space: Bush and the New Push for Galactic Warfare,” Alternative Press Review, Summer 2001, posted at http://www.altpr.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=60&page=1
[xxi] US Space Command Vision for 2020, posted at http://www.peaceactionme.org/v-intro.html
[xxii] cited by Karl Grossman, “Nukes in Space: Bush and the New Push for Galactic Warfare,” Alternative Press Review, Summer 2001, posted at http://www.altpr.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=60&page=1
[xxiii] The report can be downloaded from the Project for a New American Century web site. Go to http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm
[xxiv] The seminal report of the Rumsfeld Space Commission is available for download at http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/space20010111.html
[xxv] “ABM Treaty still lives, say congressmen who sue to undo its ‘unconstitutional’ knifing by Bush without OK of Congress,”

A WALL news report, June 21, 2002 posted at http://www.cndyorks.gn.apc.org/yspace/articles/abmt/treatystilllives.htm
[xxvi] The details are posted at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS) web site at http://cns.miis.edu/research/space/armscontrol/international/index.htm
[xxvii] Jeff Hecht, “US takes unilateral stance in new space policy,” NewScientist.com news service, October 10, 2006.
[xxviii] Marc Kaufman and Dafna Linzer, “China Criticized for Anti-Satellite Missile Test,” Washington Post, January 19, 2007.
[xxix] “China Ready to Counter U.S. Space Plans,” China Daily, May 23, 2005.
[xxx] Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press, “The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy,” Foreign Affairs, March/April 2006.
[xxxi] Ralph Vartabedian, “U.S. Rolls Out Nuclear Weapons Plan”,

Los Angeles Times, April 6, 2006.
[xxxii] Joseph Kahn, “China Confirms Test of Anti-Satellite Weapon,” The New York Times, January 23, 2007. Posted at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/world/asia/23cnd-china.html?hp&ex=1169614800&en=d9317a9a60f6aebb&ei=5094&partner=homepage
[xxxiii] “Wars ‘Useful’ Says US Army Chief, BBC News, January 23, 2004.
[xxxiv] Dan Eggen, “9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon,” The Washington Post, August 2, 2006.
[xxxv] David Ray Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, Olive Branch Press, 2005, pp. 282-290.
[xxxvi] Remarks made by Bob Kerrey during 9/11 Commission hearings, June 17, 2004.
[xxxvii] For the press release go to http://www.public-action.com/911/noradresponse/
[xxxviii] The source here is the FAA’s Aeronautical Information Manual. Official Guide to Basic Flight Information and Air Traffic Control (ATC) Procedures,posted at www.faa.gov
[xxxix] AP report, August 13, 2002.
[xl] The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 31.
[xli] The panel even admits this. The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 34.
[xlii] The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 27.
[xliii] The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 20 and 24.
[xliv] Christian Science Monitor, September 13, 2001; ABC News, September 6, 2002; New York Times, September 13, 2001.
[xlv] ABC News, September 6, 2002
[xlvi] The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 34.
[xlvii] The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 26.
[xlviii] The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 34.
[xlix] A verbatim transcript of his testimony may be found in David Ray Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, Olive Branch Press, pp. 196-198.
[l] The word “incorrect” becomes a mantra. The 9/11 Commission Report, for instance p. 34.
[li] Minneapolis Star-Tribune, July 30, 2004.
[lii] David Ray Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, Olive Branch Press, 2005, chapter 15, especially p. 252.
[liii] FDCH TRANSCRIPTS, Senate Armed Services Committee Holds Hearing on Role of Defense Department in Homeland Security Congressional Hearings, Oct. 25, 2001; National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the US, 12th Public Hearing, June 17, 2004, posted at www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing12/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-06-17.htm
[liv] The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 27.
[lv]The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 45.
[lvi] The report informs us of this fact in a passage so cryptic it remains unexplained to this day: “Third, the lead pilot and local FAA controller incorrectly assumed the flight plan instructions to go “090 for 60” superseded the original scramble order.” Whatever that means. The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 27.
[lvii] Webster Griffin Tarpley gives the fullest account I have yet seen in the latest edition of his book 9/11 Synthetic Terrorism: Made in USA, progressive Press, 2006, see the preface and pp. 203-215.
[lviii] cited in David Ray Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, Olive Branch Press, 2005, p. 163.
[lix] As far as I know, Michael Ruppert was the first to report this. See Michael Ruppert, “The Truth and Lies of 9/11” (video), http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/081606_burning_bridge.shtml

The military web sites have been archived at http://www.emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/dcmilsep.htm and at

http://www.emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/dcmil.htm
[lx] NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES, Public Hearing, Friday, May 23, 2003, posted at http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm
[lxi] Richard A. Clark, Against All Enemies, New York, The Free Press, 2004, p.7.
[lxii] It was widely reported that the few pieces of wreckage recovered from the pentagon crash did not come from a Boeing 757. This was incorrect. The 9/11 truth movement needs to do a better job of researching evidence and following through. In fact, the Rolls Royce expert who reportedly disavowed the parts was not an engineer, but worked in public relations. Furthermore, he was employed at the Rolls Royce plant in Indianapolis, which makes a different engine. The 9/11 reporter who delve PAGE 49d into this never received a confirmation, one way or the other, from the Derby facility, where Rolls Royce produces the 757 engine. Two internet web sites have posted detailed analyses of the parts recovered from the pentagon crash. I urge you to make up your own mind. http://www.pentagonresearch.com/757debris.html

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml
[lxiii] Los Angeles Times, September 16, 2001.
[lxiv] Tarpley, 9/11 Synthetic Terrorism, p.125.
[lxv] Newsweek, September 22, 2001.
[lxvi] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, chapter 10.

Shell, Repsol, Total, Defy U.S. to Seek Iran Deals

Feb. 23 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush's campaign to turn Iran into an economic pariah is being rebuffed from Spain to Malaysia as countries and companies pursue long-term agreements to tap into the world's second-largest reserves of oil and gas.

Shell, Repsol, Total, Defy U.S. to Seek Iran Deals (Update1)

By Celestine Bohlen

Feb. 23 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush's campaign to turn Iran into an economic pariah is being rebuffed from Spain to Malaysia as countries and companies pursue long-term agreements to tap into the world's second-largest reserves of oil and gas.

Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Europe's largest oil company, and Spain's Repsol YPF SA -- which last month signed a new agreement on a three-year-old gas production project, estimated at more than $10 billion -- are among those who can ill afford to give up oil and natural-gas projects in Iran, said James Bell, president of Gas Strategies, a London-based consulting firm.

``Companies who want a piece of the action in Iran have no choice but to stay in the long, patient waiting game,'' Bell said in a telephone interview.

U.S. officials have issued explicit warnings against such deals and even threatened to use a 1996 law to levy penalties against foreign companies that do business both in the U.S. and in Iran, now subject to United Nations sanctions for refusing to halt its nuclear program.

Still, Austria and Switzerland last month signed ``memorandums of understanding'' for gas deliveries from Iran in 2012 via a pipeline that has yet to be built. In Tehran this month, Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee reopened talks on a long-stalled project to pipe in gas from Iran.

Thierry Desmarest, chairman of Paris-based Total SA, Europe's third-biggest oil company, said Feb. 14 that negotiations are continuing with Iran over a major liquefied natural gas project.

`In Everybody's Interest'

``There's no denying the fact that barring certain political considerations, it is in everybody's interest that investments be made in Iran to boost capacity of oil and gas production,'' Desmarest told an analysts' conference in Paris.

Adam Newton, a spokesman for Shell based in London, said Shell had signed a ``framework agreement'' with Iran on Jan. 27. ``We are satisfied with progress on this project, and we would expect to make a final decision on whether to go ahead in a year's time,'' he said in a telephone interview on Feb. 8.

While the energy industry isn't the target of the sanctions package imposed against Iran by the UN in December, the U.S. is pointing out that possible further sanctions might pose a threat to it.

``If a country is going to fall under sanctions and if the sanctions will be strengthened, do you really want to do business with it?'' Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns said Feb. 14 at the Brookings Institution in Washington. ``There are alternatives,'' such as Kazakhstan, if a country is ``looking for energy relationships,'' he said.

`We Want Them to Be Nervous'

In an interview, Burns cited U.S.-led pressure on financial institutions, which he said is already working. Iranians are ``nervous that the financial markets are going to turn away from them, that they're going to see investment dry up,'' he said. ``And we want them to be nervous, frankly.''

Congress is also sending warning messages. A Jan. 7 accord for the Malaysian company SKS Ventures to develop two gas fields in Iran prompted Representative Tom Lantos, the new chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, to threaten to hold up a pending U.S.-Malaysia trade agreement. He also called on the Bush administration to impose sanctions against China National Offshore Oil Corp. for its $16 billion oil and gas deal in Iran.

Lantos, a California Democrat who backed legislation to allow exports of nuclear-power technology to India, is also dissatisfied with the Indian government's discussions with Iran on a gas pipeline. Lantos said he supports Bush administration efforts to stop the 2,700-kilometer (1,680-mile) pipeline linking Iran to India via Pakistan.

``Delhi should not do business with an Iran that is relentlessly seeking to acquire nuclear arms, and our dealings with India should be contingent on how it observes this principle,'' Lantos said in an e-mail.

`Dire Need'

So far, the U.S. pressure hasn't met with much success. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, in an interview with the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera published on Feb. 9, said his country will forge ahead with the pipeline. ``We are in dire need of energy and we are keen on carrying out this project,'' he said.

To many nations, particularly in Europe, Iran has emerged as a key alternative to dependence on Russian gas. Austria's OMV AG is heading a group that has backing from the European Union to build a 5 billion euro ($6.6 billion) pipeline, known as Nabucco, that would go through Turkey into eastern and central Europe.

``Iran would be the ideal partner for us,'' said OMV's exploration chief, Helmut Langanger, during an auction of Iranian oil-exploration tenders in Vienna Feb. 1. ``No company can afford not to look at Iran.''

`A Sure Sign'

Dozens of oil-company representatives from Europe, India, Russia and China attended the Vienna auction. National Iranian Oil Co. director Gholam Hossein Nozari said the attendance was ``a sure sign companies do not cower to U.S. pressure,'' according to the official IRNA news agency.

Iran has 18 percent of the world's gas reserves, second after Russia, and 11 percent of oil reserves, ranking behind Saudi Arabia. Iran now exports $47 billion worth of oil around the world, except to the U.S., which has unilateral sanctions in place against it.

Akbar E. Torbat, a sanctions expert at California State University at Dominguez Hills, said that Iran has been trying to sign new energy deals before the UN assesses the response to its demands and considers possible new sanctions at the end of February. The first round of sanctions, imposed two months ago, was aimed principally at individuals and materials involved with Iran's nuclear program.

New Sanctions

The prospect of new, perhaps tougher, sanctions ``encouraged Iran to give more incentives to international companies before the 60 days were up, so energy companies had to rush to take it or leave it,'' Torbat said in a telephone interview. In Tehran on Feb. 17, Oil Minister Kazem Vaziri Hamaneh said Iran was preparing several contingency plans in the event that new UN sanctions include the oil industry.

Not all companies have rushed into Iran. In January 2005, John Browne, then chairman of BP Plc, the biggest oil and gas producer in the U.S., explicitly ruled out investments in Iran because they ``would be offensive to the United States and therefore against BP's interests.'' And U.S. pressure accounted for a decision last September by Tokyo-based Inpex Holdings Inc., Japan's biggest oil explorer, to drop its share in Iran's 26 billion-barrel Azadegan oil field to 10 percent from 75 percent. In the meantime, OAO Lukoil, Russia's largest oil company, agreed in January to take over a majority share.

Jeroen van der Veer, chief executive officer of The Hague- based Shell, said in Feb. 1 comments to reporters in London that as important as Iran's reserves are, ``we have all the short-term political concerns.''

``We have quite a dilemma,'' he said.

To contact the reporter on the story: Celestine Bohlen in Paris at cbohlen1@bloomberg.net .
Last Updated: February 23, 2007 06:29 EST

The true extent of Britain's failure in Basra

02/23/07 "The Independent" -- - The partial British military withdrawal from southern Iraq announced by Tony Blair this week follows political and military failure, and is not because of any improvement in local security, say specialists on Iraq.

Revealed: The true extent of Britain's failure in Basra

By Patrick Cockburn

02/23/07 "The Independent" -- - The partial British military withdrawal from southern Iraq announced by Tony Blair this week follows political and military failure, and is not because of any improvement in local security, say specialists on Iraq.

In a comment entitled "The British Defeat in Iraq" the pre-eminent American analyst on Iraq, Anthony Cordesman of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, in Washington, asserts that British forces lost control of the situation in and around Basra by the second half of 2005.

Mr Cordesman says that while the British won some tactical clashes in Basra and Maysan province in 2004, that "did not stop Islamists from taking more local political power and controlling security at the neighbourhood level when British troops were not present". As a result, southern Iraq has, in effect, long been under the control of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri) and the so-called "Sadrist" factions.

Mr Blair said for three years Britain had worked to create, train and equip Iraqi Security Forces capable of taking on the security of the country themselves. But Mr Cordesman concludes: "The Iraqi forces that Britain helped create in the area were little more than an extension of Shia Islamist control by other means."

The British control of southern Iraq was precarious from the beginning. Its forces had neither experience of the areas in which they were operating nor reliable local allies. Like the Americans in Baghdad, they failed to stop the mass looting of Basra on the fall of Saddam Hussein and never established law and order.

American and British officials never appeared to take on board the unpopularity of the occupation among Shia as well as Sunni Iraqis. Mr Blair even denies that the occupation was unpopular or a cause of armed resistance. But from the fall of Saddam Hussein, mounting anger against it provided an environment in which bigoted Sunni insurgents and often criminal Shia militias could flourish.

The British forces had a lesson in the dangers of provoking the heavily armed local population when six British military police were killed in Majar al-Kabir on 24 June 2003. During the uprising of Mehdi Army militia of Muqtada al-Sadr in 2004, British units were victorious in several bloody clashes in Amara, the capital of Maysan province.

But in the elections in January 2005, lauded by Mr Blair this week, Sciri became the largest party in Basra followed by Fadhila, followers of the Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr, the father of Muqtada al-Sadr. The latter's supporters became the largest party in Maysan.

Mr Cordesman says the British suffered political defeat in the provincial elections of 2005, and lost at the military level in autumn of the same year when increased attacks meant they they could operate only through armoured patrols. Much-lauded military operations, such as "Corrode" in May 2006, did not alter the balance of forces.

Mr Cordesman's gloomy conclusions about British defeat are confirmed by a study called "The Calm before the Storm: The British Experience in Southern Iraq" by Michael Knights and Ed Williams, published by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Comparing the original British ambitions with present reality the paper concludes that "instead of a stable, united, law-abiding region with a representative government and police primacy, the deep south is unstable, factionalised, lawless, ruled as a kleptocracy and subject to militia primacy".

Local militias are often not only out of control of the Iraqi government, but of their supposed leaders in Baghdad. The big money earner for local factions is the diversion of oil and oil products, with the profits a continual source of rivalry and a cause of armed clashes. Mr Knights and Mr Williams say that control in the south is with a "well-armed political-criminal Mafiosi [who] have locked both the central government and the people out of power".

Could the British Army have pursued a different strategy? It has been accused of caving in to the militias. But it had little alternative because of the lack of any powerful local support. The theme of President Bush and Mr Blair since the invasion has been that they are training Iraqi forces.

Police and army number 265,000, but the problem is not training or equipment but lack of loyalty to the central government. Vicious though the militias and insurgents usually are, they have a legitimacy in the eyes of Iraqis which the government's official forces lack. Periodic clean-ups like "Corrode" and "Sinbad" do not change this.

There is no doubt the deterioration in the situation is contrary to the rosy picture presented by Downing Street. Messrs Knights and Williams note: "By September 2006, British forces needed to deploy a convoy of Warrior armoured vehicles to ferry police trainers to a single police station and deliver a consignment of toys to a nearby hospital." Some British army positions were being hit by more mortar bombs than anywhere else in Iraq. There was continual friction with local political factions.

Why is the British Army still in south Iraq and what good does it do there? The suspicion grows that Mr Blair did not withdraw them because to do so would be too gross an admission of failure and of soldiers' lives uselessly lost. It would also have left the US embarrassingly bereft of allies. Reidar Visser, an expert on Basra, says after all the publicity about the British "soft" approach in Basra in 2003, local people began to notice that the soldiers were less and less in the streets and the militias were taking over. "This, in turn, created a situation where critics claim the sole remaining objective of the British forces in Iraq is to hold out and maintain a physical presence somewhere within the borders of the governorates in the south formally left under their control, while at the same minimising their own casualties.' Mr Visser said.

In other words, British soldiers have stayed and died in southern Iraq, and will continue to do so, because Mr Blair finds it too embarrassing to end what has become a symbolic presence and withdraw them.

Other premiers' foreign policy misjudgements...

Lord Salisbury The Boer War 1899-1902

The discovery of gold in the two independent Boer republics of Transvaal and Orange Free State led Britain to flex its military muscle in South Africa. There was enthusiastic support for the war back home in Britain, giving Salisbury a landslide in the 1900 general election. However, support began to wane as the war dragged on, and there was outrage at Britain's brutal tactics - although they led to the Boers' surrender in 1902. Despite the apparently successful outcome, it contributed in large part to the catastrophic defeat for the Conservatives in 1906, and signified the beginning of the end for the British Empire.

David Lloyd George The Easter Rising 1916

Prior to the 1916 Easter Rising, there had been little appetite among the Irish for armed struggle. But the execution of the leaders of the uprising, and subsequent atrocities, most notably the 1921 Croke Park massacre, only served to strengthen the resolve of those fighting for independence. What had begun as a small-scale armed rebellion escalated rapidly. Sinn Fein won 70 per cent of Irish seats in the 1918 general election, which was followed by an upsurge in violence, retaliations, a declaration of independence, a war of independence, and finally, in 1922, independence itself.

Anthony Eden The Suez Crisis, 1956

Covertly arranged in collusion with France and Israel, the mission was to regain control of the Suez canal (nationalised by Egypt), and to overthrow the nationalist Nasser regime. While the initial outcome was successful from a military point of view, and with minimal British casualties, the perception that Britain and France were seeking some kind of colonial resurgence did not sit well in Washington. Eisenhower made it clear to Eden that he did not want the operation to go ahead, and was willing to back it up with economic threats. Eden caved in, ending his career and Britain's status as world superpower.

Robert Peel The First Anglo-Afghan War 1839-42

The mission to curb Russian influence by deposing Dost Mohammed and restoring former ruler Shoja Shah, was launched to strengthen British interests. The British took Kandahar, Ghazni and Kabul, captured Dost Mohammed and restored the Shoja to the throne. Their job seemingly done, they withdrew, leaving a garrison of troops and two envoys in Kabul. In 1841, however, there was an uprising, and the garrison was forced to surrender. The retreating British troops and civilians were massacred, bolstering Afghanistan's growing reputation as a graveyard for foreign armies.

© 2007 Independent News and Media Limited

Greetings from India: 7 Reasons To Nuke The USA

By Yamin Zakaria

02/23/07 "ICH" -- -- According to the doctrine of pre-emptive strike which the US has adopted since 9/11, it too can be subjected to a pre-emptive nuclear strike, as it poses a threat to other peaceful nations of the world. The US has a sordid track record for using such weapons against civilians and it has constantly maintained a large stockpile of such weapons of mass destruction, and continuously develops them. There are additional reasons to nuke the US, however I have decided to highlight only seven, which I have listed below.

7 Reasons To Nuke The USA

By Yamin Zakaria

02/23/07 "ICH" -- -- According to the doctrine of pre-emptive strike which the US has adopted since 9/11, it too can be subjected to a pre-emptive nuclear strike, as it poses a threat to other peaceful nations of the world. The US has a sordid track record for using such weapons against civilians and it has constantly maintained a large stockpile of such weapons of mass destruction, and continuously develops them. There are additional reasons to nuke the US, however I have decided to highlight only seven, which I have listed below.

This is partly for brevity and I hope it might have some resonance with the Zionist-Christian Fundamentalists, especially the nutty ones, as number 7 has significance in the Bible. Also, they are constantly yearning for the Armageddon, and nuking USA may only speed up the process, so for a change I might have these Christian-Zionists on my side! The Halleluiah brigade would probably jump up, waving their arms in the air whilst claiming to be speaking in tongues, proclaim that the good Lord says: bring it on, nuke the US for their sins! Perhaps, I would also have the communists and their variants to concur with me, as nuking the leading capitalist nation by non-state actors would seem like initiating a 21st century explosive revolution by the powerless proletariats against the capitalist class!

Before anyone screams mass murder, they ought to consider that their judgments will rest on the identity of the victims and the perpetrators. If it is the ‘terrorists’ (non state-actors, freedom fighters, Iraqi resistance etc) nuking the US, it will be depicted as terrorism and mass murder; conversely if the US uses such weapons, it will be defensive measures in the guise of a pre-emptive strike to eliminate potential threats incurring lots of collateral damages. Like the collateral damages inflicted on a massive scale when the Atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, neither were military targets and by this time Japan was already on its knees with no Air Force and its Navy almost annihilated. Perhaps one day some objective historian might call that an act of terrorism! Let me now list the 7 reasons to Nuke the USA.

1) The US was established on the blood of 70 million Native Americans. Their lands were stolen. Since the US leadership considers it right of the Jews to occupy Palestine as they lived here over 2000 years ago, then the Native Americans can also argue back only 500 years and have their lands returned to them. So a valid ground to repatriate the European colonizers, if they refuse they can be herded into camps, subjected to a trail of tears. Alternatively they can be nuked out of existence for resisting, as well as retribution for the brutal killing of their ancestors.

2) Consider the crimes against the Africans, their enslavement, oppression and lynching for centuries, which led to millions perishing. An irony of the declaration of independence by the Founding Fathers of the US, who stated that all men were created equal, whilst Afro-Americans were subjected to such brutality which continued for many decades. They have the right seek retribution (including nuclear strike) against the descendents of the criminals who have not paid them any compensation.

3) During the Spanish-American war at the turn of century, Philippines was colonized, and at least a 250,000 Filipinos were killed, then the country was turned into a brothel for the US soldiers, and it continues to be used in that manner. We don’t find Billy Graham and his ilk lecturing about the sin here. Nor do we find the voices for women’s rights; I suppose if they covered up instead of spreading their legs to the US soldiers then it would be cause for alarm! The Filipinos have the right of retribution for the carnage and rape.

4) The killing of the innocent Vietnamese populations and supporting monsters like the Pol Pot led to millions of Cambodians being killed. They too have the right of retribution and a nuclear strike would serve as deterrence for future attacks by the US.

5) The ongoing ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians through arming the Zionists, and the genocide against the Iraqis from 1991 onwards are good reasons to nuke the US and halt the massacre and oppression. A bully always think twice when it gets a punched by one of its victim. The only reason why the US has not used nukes against the Islamic world because it fears nuclear reprisal, as Muslims do not believe in turning the other cheek, for that matter neither do the Christians!

6) Using the various financial institutions, and bribing corrupt regimes, the US has exploited the economic resources for its own benefit, bringing misery to millions around the world. Nuking the US would halt these forms of oppression, and a new economic order is likely to prevail after it is crippled permanently by nuking it.

7) At present everyone is speculating the use of nuclear weapons against Iran by the US or through its proxy Israel. A pre-emptive strike would make the US and the Zionists think twice, as the American and Israeli masses might appreciate what it means to use such weapons. I doubt they would have the appetite for more. For the Iraqis and the oppressed around the world they are already dying, their situation is unlikely to get any worse than it is.

Using the principles of free speech I have expressed the case for nuking the US and I am sure others would add to the above list. My opponents would try and gag me under the pretext of promoting terrorism, of course that is because I am advocating that Americans are terrorized in order to restrain the beast amongst them. Giving them a taste of their own medicine would make the US masses actually realize what foreign policy, collateral damages etc really means! In contrast, the numerous times calls have been made to nuke Iran, Mecca, North Korea etc goes unnoticed, of course that would not be promoting terrorism but upholding free speech. Is this not double standard? Of course not as it depends on whose standards you are using as a yardstick!

Although I have made the case for nuking the US but I would oppose the use of such weapons, a nuclear war would lead to everyone losing out. Mass murder on such a scale would bring misery to all sides. Hence, I would favor a genuine nuclear-free world and not a nuclear-free Iran only! Likewise a nuclear-free Middle East and not a nuclear Israel with nuclear-free Arabs. The only justification for using such weapons would be one of last resort of self-defense, which the Iranians, Iraqis and Palestinians and others might resort to given the constant US and Israeli aggression against them.

Now consider this scenario, a Caliphate is established in the Middle East that has unified the Islamic world, it’s armed with nuclear weapons. No doubt it would be competing with the US in the international arena. Who is more like to use such weapons? Foreign policy of the Caliphate is Jihad, which is the spread of Islam, using nukes to annihilate entire section of population, would defeat that central objective of spreading the message of Islam. Nukes and Jihad does not go hand in hand unless it is entirely for defensive purpose.

Where as the US as a Capitalist nation is a far better candidate as it: has a track record for using such weapons; it seeks to maximize its interests at any cost, so annihilating other races fits with its philosophy and morals, and it has a strong record for committing genocide on a massive scale in order to exploit natural resources and enforce hegemony.

They scream peace, but what they mean is war; they shout freedom but what they mean is enslavement; they shout democracy but what they mean is democracy for its multinationals. The Holy Quran describes such people whose words contradict their deeds: “And when it is said unto them: Make not mischief in the earth, they say: We are peacemakers only. Are not they indeed the mischief-makers? But they perceive not. (2:11-12)”

Yamin Zakaria (www.iiop.org) - Mumbai, India

Apocalyptica und Nina Hagen : Seemann

Dunkel....

Smoke On The Water - Deep Purple

old - maybe - but GOOD!

Eagle-Hotel California

... a classic!

Russland: Die Grenzen der Lehrmeisterei

Die Russen blicken so optimistisch in die Zukunft wie schon lange nicht mehr. Für einen grossen Teil der Bevölkerung hat sich der Lebensstandard verbessert. Iwan Normalverbraucher kümmert sich wenig um Demokratie und Menschenrechte und befürwortet die neue selbstbewusste Politik des Kremls. Der Westen muss sich von der Illusion lösen, dem Land seine eigenen Werte aufzwingen zu können. Der Wandel muss von innen kommen.

13. Februar 2007, Neue Zürcher Zeitung
Die Grenzen der Lehrmeisterei
Während es Russland immer besser geht, betrachtet Europa das Land immer mehr als Bedrohung

Die Russen blicken so optimistisch in die Zukunft wie schon lange nicht mehr. Für einen grossen Teil der Bevölkerung hat sich der Lebensstandard verbessert. Iwan Normalverbraucher kümmert sich wenig um Demokratie und Menschenrechte und befürwortet die neue selbstbewusste Politik des Kremls. Der Westen muss sich von der Illusion lösen, dem Land seine eigenen Werte aufzwingen zu können. Der Wandel muss von innen kommen.

Igor Awerkijew leitet die Zivilkammer beim Gouverneur in der Industriestadt Perm, eine von Präsident Putin ins Leben gerufene Institution. Viele Regimekritiker sehen diese als Versuch, einen machtkonformen Ersatz für die Zivilgesellschaft zu schaffen. Dabei scheint gerade im Gebiet Perm etliches anders zu sein. In Perm befindet sich zum Beispiel ein einzigartiges Straflager-Museum, Perm-36, das aus dem regionalen Etat finanziert wird. Und bei den letzten Wahlen zur regionalen Duma hat die liberale Partei Union Rechter Kräfte (SPS), dem administrativen Druck seitens des Kremls zum Trotz, über sechzehn Prozent der Stimmen holen können. Für die liberale Öffentlichkeit gilt Perm deshalb als Ausnahme, welche die Regel bestätigt: Seine lebendige Zivilgesellschaft scheint ihr lediglich Beweis dafür, dass die Zivilgesellschaft im übrigen Land erwürgt wird.

Auch in Deutschland, wo besonders viele Verbände sich für die russische Zivilgesellschaft engagieren, sieht man den in Russland wachsenden Autoritarismus mit Sorge. Awerkijew versteht diese Schwarzmalerei nicht. «Wenn ich im Ausland bin», sagte er auf einer Berliner Tagung über Xenophobie in Russland, «habe ich das Gefühl, dass ich aus einem faschistischen Staat eingereist komme und ein Opfer bin. Russland ist aber kein faschistischer Staat, und ich bin kein Opfer. Mir geht es gut, und ich tue das, was ich für richtig halte. Und überhaupt», fügte er hinzu, «man sollte aufhören, uns Geld zu geben. Wir kommen schon selbst zurecht.»

Neues Selbstbewusstsein

Manche unter den Anwesenden reagierten mit Unmut auf solche Selbstgerechtigkeit. Die einen unterstellten dem engagierten Menschenrechtler, er sei ein Sprachrohr des Regimes geworden; die anderen erschraken angesichts der Perspektive, sie könnten ihre Existenzberechtigung als «Demokratie-Promoter» verlieren. Dabei kam in Awerkijews irritierender Replik sowohl ein neues Selbstbewusstsein als auch ein Vertrauen in die eigenen Kräfte zum Ausdruck. Diese Zuversicht teilt Awerkijew mit einer wachsenden Anzahl seiner Landsleute. Und viele im Westen können damit wenig anfangen.

Tatsächlich steht die zunehmend kritische Einstellung der westlichen Öffentlichkeit zur Entwicklung in Russland im krassen Widerspruch zur Selbsteinschätzung der russischen Bevölkerung. So war laut Umfragen des Lewada-Zentrums das vergangene Jahr eines der ruhigsten und glücklichsten. 46 Prozent der Russen blicken optimistisch in die Zukunft. Die Ursache ist eine reale Verbesserung der Lebensstandards eines bedeutenden Teils der Bevölkerung. Die Ergebnisse der Reformen, die Anfang der neunziger Jahre in Gang gesetzt wurden, kommen endlich auch dem Durchschnittsmenschen zugute. Iwan Normalverbraucher, der dank billigen Krediten nun seine lange angestauten Konsumträume verwirklichen kann, interessiert sich kaum für Demokratie und Menschenrechte, er ist auch durch die Ermordung von Anna Politkowskaja oder Alexander Litwinenko nicht aus der Laune zu bringen und pfeift auf die westliche Kritik. Nach der Niederlage im Kalten Krieg hat er an Selbstbewusstsein gewonnen und heisst die Politik des Kremls, auch dessen Grossmachtgebärden, gut.

Normative Optik

Das aus russischer Sicht erfolgreiche Jahr 2006 erscheint in der Wahrnehmung der westlichen Öffentlichkeit indes als eines der beunruhigendsten nach dem Auseinanderfallen der Sowjetunion. Allerdings gab es schon lange nicht mehr so viele Ereignisse in so kurzer Zeit, die ein so heftiges Unbehagen an Russland und Zweifel an seiner aussenpolitischen Berechenbarkeit hatten aufkommen lassen.

Nach dem Abdrehen des Gashahns für die Ukraine kam der Konflikt mit Georgien, der von einer Handelsblockade gegenüber dem kleinen Land sowie von der Deportation georgischer Staatsangehöriger aus russischen Städten begleitet wurde. Gleichzeitig kam es zu einer feindlichen Übernahme der Anteile des von Shell geführten Energiekonsortiums, das seit Mitte der neunziger Jahre in die Förderung der Öl- und Gasvorkommen bei Sachalin investiert hatte, durch Gazprom. Am Jahresende hat Russland wegen des Konflikts mit Weissrussland die Ölversorgung europäischer Raffinerien für drei Tage unterbrochen. Das dubiose Gesetz, das ausländische und russische NGO unter staatliche Kontrolle stellt, der Mord an der kritischen Journalistin Anna Politkowskaja und die Polonium-Affäre haben das Ihre getan, um den Ruf Russlands zu beschädigen.

Aber je kritischer die westliche Berichterstattung wird, desto mehr verschwindet das reale Leben des weiten Landes hinter den Politkrimis, und desto unverständlicher erscheint die Haltung von Leuten wie Igor Awerkijew. Die normative Optik, die ganz auf «Werte» ausgerichtet ist, beeinträchtigt die Erkenntnis des Anderen. Seit der Aufklärung beansprucht die westliche Sicht universalistische Geltung. Als Europa und dann die USA die Welt dominierten, setzte sich ihre Sicht als alternativlos durch. Heute jedoch schrumpft der Einfluss des Westens und mit ihm die Anziehungskraft seiner Werte.

«Sonderweg» ist kein blosses Etikett mehr für eine von der Demokratie abweichende Entwicklung, sondern wird wahrgenommen als legitime Besonderheit der Modernisierung bei vielen Nationen, die zum Erfolg gelangen, ohne sich um Gewaltenteilung und Menschenrechte zu scheren. Der Ölsozialismus eines Hugo Chávez, der chinesische Kommuno-Kapitalismus, zahlreiche Pseudodemokratien und staatskapitalistische Autokratien (was häufig dasselbe ist) werden von der eigenen Bevölkerung und den Nachbarn danach beurteilt, ob sie Erfolge vorweisen können.

Freilich sind die meisten dieser Länder weit weg und zivilisatorisch anders als die europäische Peripherie Russland, die schon seit Jahrhunderten versucht, den Westen einzuholen. Die russische Elite hat westliche Bildung und Wissenschaft übernommen und definiert ihre Identität mit Blick auf die europäische Kultur. Aus dieser kulturellen Affinität heraus träumten die russischen «Westler» vom «gemeinsamen Haus Europa». Der Westen fordert von Russland seinerseits eine «Transformation», die deterministisch in dessen Europäisierung gipfeln soll. Der unlängst verstorbene Moskauer Soziologe Juri Lewada zweifelte an dieser Art von Entwicklungsteleologie. «Transformation», pflegte er zu sagen, «ist kein Prozess, sondern ein Zustand».

Ein schwieriger Brocken

Mit der Erkenntnis, dass es in die Irre führt, wenn die russischen Zustände mit der westlichen Messlatte gemessen werden, wäre schon viel gewonnen. Die EU-Politiker scheinen zu glauben, dass die «Integration» Russlands in den Westen zu einer «wertebasierten Partnerschaft», das heisst zu Beziehungen, die auf den westlichen Normen basieren, führen würde. Die Integration eines so gewaltigen Gemeinwesens wie Russland in die EU würde den Import seiner «Werte», wie sie in der politischen und wirtschaftlichen Kultur ihren konzentrierten Ausdruck finden, massiv beschleunigen. Die bekannteste Verkörperung dieser Kultur ist die vom Kreml geführte Gazprom.

Russland ist ein schwieriger Brocken. Der Westen tut gut daran, sich nicht länger als Lehrmeister aufzuspielen, von der russischen Bevölkerung die Übernahme westlicher Werte abzuverlangen und sich darüber zu empören, wenn der Wertetransfer nicht so leicht funktioniert. Es ist die Sache von Igor Awerkijew und seinesgleichen, Russland voranzubringen. In seiner Stadt hat er damit Erfolg. Dass er auch scheitern kann, weiss er selber nur allzu gut.

Sonja Margolina

Sonja Margolina lebt als freie Publizistin mit Themenschwerpunkt Russland in Berlin. Zuletzt erschien im Berliner WJS-Verlag: Wodka. Trinken und Macht in Russland (2004).

Der iranische Chefunterhändler für das Atomprogramm, Ali Larijani, im Interview

13. Februar 2007, Neue Zürcher Zeitung
«Man kann nicht bestrafen, bevor ein Verbrechen begangen wurde»
Der iranische Chefunterhändler für das Atomprogramm, Ali Larijani, über Teherans nukleare Ziele und die Lage im Irak

Ali Larijani ist einer der einflussreichsten Politiker in Iran mit einem direkten Draht zu Revolutionsführer Khamenei. Er ist Vorsitzender des Nationalen Sicherheitsrates und führt die Verhandlungen, die das iranische Atomprogramm betreffen. Vor seinem Treffen mit Bundespräsidentin Calmy-Rey in Bern am Montag befragten ihn der NZZ-Redaktor Jürg Bischoff und Christoph Plate, Auslandredaktor der «NZZ am Sonntag».



Herr Larijani, an der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz haben Sie sich beklagt, dass Irans Bemühungen, den Terror im Irak einzudämmen, nicht anerkannt würden. Welche Bemühungen sind das?

Ali Larijani: Ich habe in München darüber gesprochen, dass wir einen gemeinsamen Zugang zu Fragen der Friedenssicherung auf regionaler und internationaler Ebene brauchen. Unser Vorschlag ist es, neue Paradigmen zu finden, innerhalb deren die grossen Mächte und die regionalen Mächte miteinander kommunizieren können. Eines davon sollte die Demokratie sein, ohne die es keine dauerhafte Ordnung und Sicherheit geben kann. Wir können aber nicht erkennen, dass die Amerikaner Ziele verfolgen, die zu Demokratie führen. Das andere ist der Respekt für andere Kulturen; man kann nicht den Lebensstil einer ganzen Gesellschaft einfach verändern.
Kein Interesse an Instabilität im Irak

Wir haben von Anfang an die demokratisch gewählte Regierung des Iraks unterstützt. Natürlich waren wir gegen die Besetzung, weil wir meinten, eine solche Invasion sei nicht angebracht im Mittleren Osten. Die Amerikaner wissen, woher diese Terroristen stammen: Die meisten sind junge Leute aus jenen Staaten des Nahen Ostens, die eng mit den Amerikanern zusammenarbeiten. Keiner der Verbündeten der USA in der Region hat ein demokratisches System.

Die Amerikaner haben Iran beschuldigt, den Terroristen im Irak Waffen und Material zum Bau von panzerbrechenden Bomben zu liefern.

Ich habe das in München nicht gehört. Was aber wäre unser Nutzen, wenn es mehr Anarchie und Instabilität im Irak gäbe? Wir haben eine 1350 Kilometer lange gemeinsame Grenze. Unsicherheit im Irak treibt irakische Flüchtlinge zu uns. Die Unsicherheit im Irak ist ausserdem nicht flächendeckend, nur ein Teil des Iraks, Bagdad und der Westen, sind davon betroffen. Der Norden und der Süden sind sicher, und beide Gegenden grenzen an Iran. Die Amerikaner suchen doch nach einem Feindbild! Man muss herausfinden, woher diese Terroristen kommen: Ihre Regierungen sollen verhindern, dass diese Leute kommen.

Was wären die Konsequenzen für Iran, wenn die Amerikaner aus dem Irak abzögen?

Der Irak steckt in einem Teufelskreis: Die Amerikaner sagen, sie müssten dort sein, um den Terror zu bekämpfen. Die Terroristen sagen, sie müssten die amerikanischen Besetzer bekämpfen. Die Amerikaner müssen verstehen, dass, solange sie dort sind, die Lage so bleibt, wie sie heute ist. Eine Truppenreduktion wäre vernünftig. Ausserdem muss Premierminister Maliki die nötige Autorität übertragen bekommen, um das Land zu führen, dann wird sich die Lage schon beruhigen. Soweit wir wissen, mischen die Amerikaner sich ständig in irakische Angelegenheiten ein, nicht nur in Sicherheitsbelangen. Das schwächt die irakische Regierung. Ausserdem müssen die Amerikaner einen Modus finden, wie sie mit den Staaten in der Region umgehen. Wenn sie effektiv sein wollen, müssen sie eine konstruktive Zusammenarbeit entwickeln und sich nicht nur Feinde machen. Natürlich wollen wir auf keinen Fall Anarchie, wenn die Amerikaner einmal die Region verlassen. Mit einem ordentlichen Zeitplan liesse sich das arrangieren.

Konsortium - gute Idee ohne Folgen

Kommende Woche läuft ein Uno-Ultimatum ab, bis zu dem Sie auf die Anreicherung von Uran verzichten sollen. Wären Sie vorbereitet auf noch härtere Uno-Sanktionen?

Irans Atompolitik ist nicht kompliziert. Unser Atomprogramm ist offen und transparent. Wir sind bereit, unser Programm im Rahmen der Abkommen über die Nichtverbreitung von Atomwaffen durchzuführen. Alles, was wir tun, wird von der IAEA beobachtet und inspiziert. Diese sagt, es sei ziemlich klar, dass unsere Aktivitäten kein Problem darstellten. Jetzt wird uns aber vorgeworfen, dass es einen Missbrauch in der Zukunft geben könnte. Also müssen wir dieser Sorge begegnen. Eine Vorgehensweise war, uns vor den Uno-Sicherheitsrat zu zerren, um uns zur Aufgabe des Atomprogramms zu zwingen. Das ist eine falsche Einstellung, denn wir werden diesem Druck nicht nachgeben. Die Anklagen gegen uns entsprechen nicht den internationalen Regeln; niemand kann eine Bestrafung verlangen, bevor ein Verbrechen begangen wurde. Ich habe darüber mit dem EU-Beauftragten Solana gesprochen: Wenn es um die Sorge vor möglichem Missbrauch in der Zukunft geht, sind wir bereit, unsere Aktivitäten innerhalb eines Konsortiums unter Beteiligung der massgeblichen Staaten durchzuführen. Solana sagte, dies sei eine gute Idee, aber es gab keine Fortschritte.

Die Russen, Iran, die Internationale Atomenergieagentur sprechen von der Schaffung internationaler Konsortien zur Uran-Anreicherung. Bisher ist aber nichts dabei herausgekommen. Warum?

Der Grund ist klar: Es gibt nur Lippenbekenntnisse zu einem solchen Konsortium. Um die Sorgen der Europäer zu beruhigen, haben wir vorgeschlagen, ein solches Konsortium in Iran mit europäischer Beteiligung zu gründen. Doch die Amerikaner möchten über eine World Nuclear Fuel Bank dieses Material alleine kontrollieren. Den Konsortiums-Vorschlag der Russen schätzen wir auch, aber wir brauchen Zeit, um diesen genauer zu studieren. Wir brauchen Garantien für die Versorgung mit angereichertem Uran. Die in der Schah-Zeit geschlossenen Vereinbarungen mit amerikanischen und europäischen Firmen wurden nach dem Sieg der Islamischen Revolution für null und nichtig erklärt. Solange die amerikanische Logik so aussieht, dass ein Verbündeter alles bekommt, jene, die keine Verbündeten sind, aber nichts, gibt es für uns keine Sicherheit. Sollte es eines Tages eine Garantie geben, dass wir angereichertes Uran erhalten, können wir unsere Einstellung ändern. Wir sind für Abrüstung, wir betrachten nukleare und andere Massenvernichtungswaffen als eine Bedrohung des internationalen Friedens.

«Iran ist keine Bedrohung»

Aber es haben nicht nur Europäer und Amerikaner Angst vor Ihrem Atomprogramm, sondern auch die arabischen Nachbarn Irans, die vor allem ein Erstarken des Schiitentums fürchten.

Die Differenzen zwischen Schiiten und Sunniten werden dramatisiert. Sie haben keine natürlichen Differenzen, sie haben friedlich miteinander gelebt. Und die Islamische Republik möchte Einheit zwischen all diesen Gruppen schaffen. Wichtig im Islam ist der Monotheismus, alles andere ist Beiwerk, das haben wir Schiiten gemeinsam mit den Sunniten, den Christen und den Juden. In den arabischen Staaten wollen einige Politiker einen schiitischen Halbmond in der Region erkennen, Iran arbeitet aber nicht an der Dominanz der Schiiten. Dem Nahen Osten wird ein Wille aufgezwungen. Die Amerikaner brauchen Gegner und Konfrontationen.

Wir haben eine defensive Strategie. In München haben einige Leute gesagt, Iran habe Raketen, die bis nach Europa reichten. Das ist ein Witz, Europa ist unser Haupthandelspartner, warum sollten wir es angreifen? So schafft man sich einen eingebildeten Feind. In allen Gesprächen mit den Nachbarn heisst es, wir seien Freunde. Wir sagen den Nachbarn: Welchen Sinn hätte es für Iran, eine Atombombe zu haben? Die Amerikaner sind stark genug, mit uns jederzeit einen Konflikt zu beginnen, warum sollten wir dann eine Atombombe haben, um die Nachbarn zu bedrohen? Wir waren nie eine Bedrohung für irgendjemanden, obwohl wir selber oft und massiv bedroht wurden.

Sind die Araber, speziell die Saudis, bereit, mit Ihnen gemeinsam Lösungen für die Probleme im Irak oder in Libanon zu suchen?

Natürlich können wir Lösungen finden. In Libanon gibt es kein Problem zwischen Sunniten und Schiiten. Sie können Sunniten, Christen und Schiiten in allen Lagern des politischen Spektrums finden. Interessierte Kreise versuchen aus all dem einen ethnischen Konflikt zu machen. Wir arbeiten eng mit Saudiarabien zusammen.
Meinungsverschiedenheiten?

Vor Wochen gab es Proteste gegen den Präsidenten Ahmadinejad an der Teheraner Universität, er hat die Lokalwahlen verloren, und es gibt Anzeichen, dass Revolutionsführer Khamenei mit der gegenwärtigen wirtschaftlichen und internationalen Entwicklung unglücklich ist. Ist er das?

Das ist doch normal in einer Demokratie. Wir sind ja keine Monarchie mehr. Unter der Präsidentschaft von Hashemi Rafsanjani und Khatami gab es solche Proteste auch. Nicht nur die Studenten, auch unsere Politiker sind verschiedener Auffassungen. Dieser Pluralismus unterscheidet uns von einigen unserer Nachbarn. Wenn es aber um Fragen unserer nationalen Sicherheit geht wie das Atomprogramm, scheinen alle Iraner einer Meinung zu sein. Sogar einige sehr kritische Oppositionsgruppen stehen in dieser Frage hinter uns.

Noch einmal zu Ayatollah Khamenei: Können Sie bestätigen, dass er unzufrieden ist mit dem Stand der Dinge im Land?

Ich habe keinen Hinweis darauf. Der Revolutionsführer hatte auch gegenüber allen früheren Regierungen schon seine sehr eigenen Ansichten.

Sie haben bei den Präsidentschaftswahlen kandidiert und verloren, heute gibt es Stimmen, die sagen, es wäre vielleicht besser, wenn Larijani gewonnen hätte. Wären Sie der bessere Präsident?

Wichtig ist doch, dass wir die Probleme in der Region lösen und uns weiterentwickeln. Unsere Energieversorgung, die Bekämpfung des Terrorismus, die Entwicklung im Irak sind wichtige Themen. Und jeder muss auf seiner Position zur Lösung dieser Probleme beitragen. Wo immer man sich am effektivsten einsetzen kann, dort soll man seinen Platz einnehmen. Aber bisher habe ich über diese Frage nach der Präsidentschaft noch nicht nachgedacht. Ich habe den Eindruck, dass Ahmadinejad im Westen anders dargestellt wird, als er ist. Ich arbeite eng mit ihm zusammen und finde ihn sehr rege bei dem Versuch, die Probleme zu lösen.

Verdient China Vertrauen? Fragt die NZZ

Schon zum zweiten Mal innerhalb eines Jahres war Chinas Staats- und Parteichef Hu Jintao diese Woche auf Einkaufstour in Afrika. Der immense Rohstoffhunger seiner boomenden Heimat hat wohl eine Erhöhung der Kadenz solcher Visiten ratsam erscheinen lassen. Doch dieses Mal hat der emsige chinesische Einkäufer offenbar mehr afrikanisches Misstrauen angetroffen als auch schon. Jedenfalls bemühte er sich in Pretoria, Ängste vor einem neokolonialistischen Übergriff Chinas auf den afrikanischen Kontinent zu zerstreuen. «China hat niemals anderen Ländern seinen Willen oder eine Ungleichbehandlung aufgezwungen und wird das auch künftig nicht tun», verkündete Hu den Afrikanern.

10. Februar 2007, Neue Zürcher Zeitung
Verdient China Vertrauen?

Schon zum zweiten Mal innerhalb eines Jahres war Chinas Staats- und Parteichef Hu Jintao diese Woche auf Einkaufstour in Afrika. Der immense Rohstoffhunger seiner boomenden Heimat hat wohl eine Erhöhung der Kadenz solcher Visiten ratsam erscheinen lassen. Doch dieses Mal hat der emsige chinesische Einkäufer offenbar mehr afrikanisches Misstrauen angetroffen als auch schon. Jedenfalls bemühte er sich in Pretoria, Ängste vor einem neokolonialistischen Übergriff Chinas auf den afrikanischen Kontinent zu zerstreuen. «China hat niemals anderen Ländern seinen Willen oder eine Ungleichbehandlung aufgezwungen und wird das auch künftig nicht tun», verkündete Hu den Afrikanern.

Da fragt sich allerdings, was denn Chinas Wille ist. In erster Linie, viel Geld zu verdienen, liesse sich holzschnittartig antworten. Und in dieser Absicht setzen die reichen Chinesen die viel ärmeren Afrikaner indirekt manchem Druck aus. Es sei hier bloss die Textilindustrie erwähnt, die in Afrika von der chinesischen Konkurrenz vom Tisch gefegt zu werden droht. Im Kontext des Rohstoffhungers gibt es zudem politischen Druck, der von den Chinesen infolge ihres Hofierens auch zwielichtiger Regime gefördert wird - zwar nicht mit Absicht, aber eben doch wissentlich. Stichworte dazu sind Darfur und Sudan.

RAUBTIER-KAPITALISMUS
Dass Chinas Aussenpolitik zum Ziel hat, andere Länder zu dominieren und nach der Weltherrschaft zu streben, kann derzeit wirklich nicht behauptet werden. Daran ändert auch die Tatsache nichts, dass Peking kürzlich einen eigenen Satelliten ins All abgeschossen hat, um sich gegenüber den Amerikanern im Weltraum aufzuspielen. Aber das Vertrauen, das Hu Jintao in seiner Rede in Pretoria den skeptischen Afrikanern abzuringen versucht hat, mag man China trotzdem nicht gewähren.

Die Rücksichtslosigkeit, mit der Peking seine wirtschaftlichen Ziele verfolgt, weckt Misstrauen. Alles scheint im Reich der Mitte dem ökonomischen Aufschwung untergeordnet oder gar geopfert zu werden. Die Politik, das gesellschaftliche Zusammenleben, die Kultur, die Umwelt. Der Aufschwung heiligt praktisch alle Mittel, denn er ist letztlich die einzige Legitimation des Regimes - und überdies eine vergängliche.

Es herrscht ein Raubtier-Kapitalismus im heutigen China. Allerdings steht dieser nicht - wie einst die Zustände im sich industrialisierenden England oder im Wilden Westen Amerikas - unter den Vorzeichen politischer Freiheit, sondern unter denjenigen einer ideologisch ausgehöhlten Diktatur. Was letztlich das Ziel und der Wille des Regimes ist, kann schwer vorausgesagt werden. Unsicher ist auch, ob und wie lange die Parteiherrschaft überlebt. Was geschehen wird, wenn ein ökonomischer Abschwung eintritt, wenn die Legitimation schwindet, ist ebenfalls nicht vorhersehbar. Ob China den Übergang zu einer harmonischen, selbstregulierenden und stabilen Gesellschaft findet, ist angesichts der gewaltigen und wachsenden sozialen, ökonomischen, politischen und geographischen Disparitäten eher fraglich. Ob eine ruhige Anpassung der Politik an die veränderte Gesellschaft und eine friedliche Ablösung der Alleinherrschaft der Partei nach dem Vorbild Taiwans möglich sein werden, steht in den Sternen.

Das Vertrauen, das der chinesische Staats- und Parteichef sich wünscht, ist ihm somit nur schwer entgegenzubringen. Auch die westliche Wirtschaftswelt, die China bewundert und beneidet, scheint der Sache nicht ganz zu trauen, weshalb sie ihre eigenen Politiker dauernd bittet, brav den Kotau vor dem Kaiser zu machen und so für gutes Klima zu sorgen. Mit seinem riesigen Markt, seinem Heer billiger Arbeitskräfte und seinen gewaltigen Devisenreserven ist China in der global vernetzten Welt ein Wirtschaftsfaktor von grossem Gewicht und bedeutender Ausstrahlung. Umso schwerwiegender ist es, dass seinem Regime nicht wirklich vertraut werden kann.

RECHTSUNSICHERHEIT
Die zentrale Schwäche ist und bleibt der fast totale Mangel an Rechtssicherheit und das Ausmass an staatlicher Willkür. Trotz allen verbalen Verrenkungen ideologischer Art und den mehr oder weniger weisen Theorien und Leitsätzen der Führungsfiguren wird in China kein neues Gesellschaftsmodell etwa einer autoritären Marktwirtschaft geschaffen. Es wird auch nicht vorexerziert, dass der Kommunismus funktionieren kann. Die Dinge entwickeln sich viel unkontrollierter, spontaner und chaotischer, als das Herrschaftssystem glauben machen könnte. Die Willkür des Regimes, das sich nicht durch Rechtsstaatlichkeit und Gewaltenteilung beschränken lassen will, dominiert und findet auf den unteren Ebenen in Form von Eigenmächtigkeit und entsprechender Rechtsunsicherheit, beispielsweise in den lokalen Verwaltungen oder in Geschäftskreisen, ihre Fortsetzung.

Unter solchen Voraussetzungen fällt es schwer, eine kohärente Politik zu betreiben. Ob China beispielsweise innert vernünftiger Frist in der Lage sein wird, sich seinen grossen Umweltproblemen zu stellen, ist völlig offen. Dabei geht es nicht in erster Linie um einen Mangel an theoretisch formulierter Umweltpolitik, sondern um grosse Vollzugsdefizite. China verfügt eigentlich über ein umfangreiches Arsenal an entsprechenden rechtlichen und ökonomischen Instrumenten, es gibt vorgeschriebene Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfungen und Zertifizierungen. Doch deren Anwendung ist willkürlich. So werden Umweltstandards in der besser entwickelten Region der Ostküste stärker angewandt als im zentralen Hinterland und im Westen. Dorthin werden dann die industriellen Dreckschleudern verfrachtet. Um in Peking die verordnete Umweltqualität zu Ehren der Olympischen Spiele 2008 zu erreichen, wird etwa ein ganzes Stahlwerk in die Provinz Hebei ausgelagert.

Solche rechtliche Willkür entspricht natürlich auch der Goldgräberstimmung im «Wilden Osten» und fördert diese zusätzlich, doch gerade für die Umwelt ist der von Rücksichtslosigkeit und Egoismus geprägte chinesische Aufbruch eine schwere Bedrohung. Laut Chinas Umweltbehörde sind 67 Prozent der sieben grossen Flusssysteme so verschmutzt und vergiftet, dass sie für menschliche Nutzung nicht mehr geeignet sind. Durch die Verbrennung von Kohle mit sehr hohem Schwefel- und Aschegehalt und durch Autoabgase - China bewegt sich auf den Spitzenplatz der CO2- Emittenten zu - wird die Luft derart belastet, dass laut der Weltbank von den 20 Städten mit der weltweit schlechtesten Luft deren 16 in China liegen. Durch Entwaldung werden Erosion, Überschwemmungen und die Entstehung sowie die Ausbreitung von Wüsten gefördert. Umweltschäden entstehen auch durch wachsende Abfallberge und durch intensive Landwirtschaft.

BEDROHLICHE UMWELTKOSTEN
Ausgelöst durch hemmungsloses und vom Regime kaum gezähmtes Wachstum, bedroht die Umweltzerstörung letztlich den Aufschwung selbst. Das Umweltministerium berechnet die jährlichen Kosten der Verschmutzung auf rund zwei Prozent des Bruttoinlandprodukts, die Weltbank spricht gar von acht bis zwölf Prozent. Damit wäre das Wachstum gleich wieder aufgefressen.

Unter den Voraussetzungen der heutigen Rechtsunsicherheit wird es China kaum gelingen, die Umweltproblematik in den Griff zu bekommen. Auch echtes Vertrauen des Auslandes wird ohne Rechtsstaatlichkeit nur schwer zu gewinnen sein. Indien, die zweite grosse aufstrebende Wirtschaftsmacht in Asien, ist dem Reich der Mitte in dieser Hinsicht um einiges voraus. Weil in China kein Verlass auf das Recht ist, kann auch der Politik nicht vertraut werden, und entsprechend schwach sind die Grundlagen für nachhaltig sichere Geschäftsbeziehungen mit dem Ausland und für ein freundnachbarschaftliches Verhältnis mit den Staaten Ostasiens. Japans Misstrauen gegenüber dem boomenden China entspringt nicht nur der Rivalität zwischen den beiden Wirtschaftsriesen, sondern auch echter Besorgnis. Obwohl das Reich der Mitte derzeit aussenpolitisch kaum ausgreift, sondern auf sein wirtschaftliches Wachstum fokussiert ist, gibt es gute Gründe, Skepsis gegenüber dem Regime in Peking zu bewahren.

B. W.

US think tank urges retreat from Iraq

An independent think tank warned that the situation in Iraq was beyond repair and urged that US forces should be pulled out whatever the result of the current "surge" of troops into Baghdad.




US think tank urges retreat from Iraq

By Dave Clark

An independent think tank warned that the situation in Iraq was beyond repair and urged that US forces should be pulled out whatever the result of the current "surge" of troops into Baghdad.

02/09/07 "AFP" -- -- A report from Washington's Council on Foreign Relations (Full report: PDF ) concluded that a US military victory was impossible in Iraq, where "amateurish" post-invasion rule by American officials had seen Iraq collapse into civil war.

The respected institute's stark assessment comes at a time of collapsing public support for the war in the United States and mounting opposition to President George W. Bush's strategy within Congress.

"The United States has already achieved all that it is likely to achieve in Iraq... Staying in Iraq can only drive up the price of those gains in blood, treasure and strategic position," wrote Steven Simon, author of the report.

"The time has come to acknowledge that the United States must fundamentally recast its commitment to Iraq. It must do so without any illusions that there are unexplored or magic fixes, whether diplomatic or military," he warned.

"Some disasters are irretrievable," he continued, calling for troops to be pulled out by the end of 2008.

Simon, in a paper entitled "After the Surge: The Case for US Military Disengagement from Iraq," said troop levels are still too low to quell the fighting but more reinforcements would make little difference in any case.

The US invasion "plunged the country into a civil war that brought about the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, wrecked the country's already debilitated infrastructure, and spurred violent sectarian rivalries."

"The crisis has now moved beyond the capacity of Washington to control on its own... The United States lacks the military resources and the domestic and international political support to master the situation," Simon warned.

Bush and his commanders have pinned the success of his Iraq strategy on sending 21,500 additional US troops to secure Baghdad and allow the embattled Iraqi government and US reconstruction teams to rebuild the country.

But Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's so-called unity government is wracked by sectarian rivalry and much of the country is prey to illegal Shiite militias and roving bands of Sunni anti-US insurgents.

In addition, Simon warns, Washington has been unable to contribute enough personnel for a sustained counterinsurgency and nation building effort.

He notes that the US civilian agencies have been only able to find 116 staff to fill a planned 167 positions on "provincial reconstruction teams," compared to the 1,700 who were thrown into a similar failed effort in Vietnam.

And even accounting for the extra troops in the ongoing "surge," the new US commander in Iraq, Lieutenant General David Petraeus, has only half the number of soldiers he would need to follow his own counterinsurgency doctrine.

In addition to destroying the Iraqi state and plunging the country into crisis, the US invasion has strengthened the hand of Washington's enemies in Iran and tied down troops that could be more usefully used elsewhere.

"By siphoning resources and political attention away from Afghanistan, a continuing military commitment to Iraq may lead to US losses in southwest Asia," Simon warned starkly of NATO's ongoing operation against the Taliban.

American failures since the March 2003 invasion had cost Bush public support at home, making military disengagement inevitable, the report warns.

"It is now just a matter of time," Simon wrote. "Better to withdraw as a coherent and somewhat volitional act than withdraw later in hectic response to public opposition to the war in the United States."

Full report: [PDF]

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse.

ElBaradei Warns US and Iran against an Unstoppable Chain Reaction

MUNICH SECURITY CONFERENCE
ElBaradei Warns US and Iran against an Unstoppable Chain Reaction

With Iran now threatening America with new missiles and the United States hunting down agents of the mullahs in Iraq, the conflict in the Middle East is again threatening to escalate. Nobel laureate Mohamed ElBaradei warns in a SPIEGEL ONLINE interview: "The Middle East is in the worst condition I have ever seen."

SPIEGEL ONLINE - February 9, 2007, 11:03 AM

MUNICH SECURITY CONFERENCE
ElBaradei Warns US and Iran against an Unstoppable Chain Reaction

With Iran now threatening America with new missiles and the United States hunting down agents of the mullahs in Iraq, the conflict in the Middle East is again threatening to escalate. Nobel laureate Mohamed ElBaradei warns in a SPIEGEL ONLINE interview: "The Middle East is in the worst condition I have ever seen."

Mohamed ElBaradei: "A durable, peaceful solution will not come through pressure only."
AP

SPIEGEL ONLINE: The United States government is threatening to capture or kill Iranian agents in Iraq and Tehran has announced it will install thousands of centrifuges for the enrichment of uranium in Natanz. Are we witnessing a dramatic escalation of the conflict?


ElBaradei: If we continue on the same course, we could see a spiral of escalation. There is an urgent need for creative diplomacy and leadership. Diplomacy is pressure and engagement, and I very much hope that we can find the right balance. A durable, peaceful solution will not come through pressure only. It will ultimately come at the negotiating table.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: You don't sound very optimistic.

ElBaradei: The United Nations resolution itself recognizes the importance of finding a negotiated solution that will allow for the development of relations and cooperation with Iran. Clearly the sanctions were the expression of concern by the international community. I think the message was heard loud and clear in Iran.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: So why not simply wait until Iran gives in and stops its nuclear program?

ElBaradei: My concern is that if we only focus on sanctions, that might lead to confrontation on both sides, ending in an uncontrolled chain reaction. My worry right now is that each side is sticking to their guns: The international community is saying "sanctions or bust," and Iran is saying "nuclear enrichment capability or bust." Ultimately sanctions are useful to send a message, but they have to be followed by an effort to create conditions for negotiations.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: So how could this happen?

ElBaradei: I hope now we can put our heads together. I have been calling for a simultaneous time-out: That means Iran would take a break from all its enrichment-related work and at the same time, the UN Security Council would put a hold on implementing sanctions. We could agree through dialogue on the basic objectives and principles to govern the negotiations and then have a three-month time-out in the hope of achieving a comprehensive settlement which would not only cover nuclear issues, but security, economic and political concerns as well.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Do you see any signs that Iran would consider stopping its enrichment activities even for a short period?

ElBaradei: Iran is very keen to see an affirmation of its right to enrich uranium under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Nobody is questioning this right, what is at stake is confidence building. Until confidence is restored, Iran should put a hold on enrichment-related activities, and to restore this confidence Iran needs to commit to being fully transparent and to start giving the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) the full access we need for verification. This includes inspections under the Additional Protocol.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is there general support for the idea of a time-out?

ElBaradei: I hope the dialogue will start this weekend in the margins of the Security Conference in Munich. German Chancellor Angela Merkel will be there, Russian President Vladimir Putin, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Ali Larijani, the head of the Iranian National Security Council. I encourage everybody to seize the opportunity.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: But it seems to be very clear that the US government is convinced that the only thing that can help is to apply more pressure on Tehran.

ElBaradei: There are differences of opinion about tactics, how to find the right balance between pressure and incentives. It's not an easy issue, it's a question of policy judgement. I personally believe that in a situation like the one you have in the Middle East today, where it's like a ball of fire, you have to be very cautious. We cannot afford to add oil to that fire. The more we have confrontation, the more the Middle East will become militant and angry. The earlier we move into a conciliatory mood the better for everybody.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: So you're hoping for less hostile rhetoric from each side?

Baradei: Absolutely. We should not ride a train wreck. The Middle East is in the worst condition I have ever seen. I have just seen reports that North Korea is moving to start a process of nuclear disarmament. That only came about through negotiations -- direct talks -- that included the United States. So why not engage Iran in the same way?

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Iran just announced that some inspectors are no longer allowed to enter the country: This includes specialists from countries who pushed for sanctions, Germany for example. How long will you be able to track what they are really doing in Natanz?

ElBaradei: It's regrettable that Iran restricted the number of inspectors and we wrote to them and asked them to reconsider. It restricts our flexibility. I hope the Iranians will understand that the more transparency there, the better it will be for them. But I can also say that there are over 100 designated inspectors accepted by the Iranians. So we have enough people to do the job. We were just in Natanz and will soon go again.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is Iran seeking to start enriching uranium on an industrial scale?

ElBaradei: The Iranians themselves said that they want to install 3,000 centrifuges and are now moving forward in installing them. They call it the second phase. How long it will take to install and operate them will be part of my report to the IAEA Board of Governors on Feb. 21. So the window of opportunity for a time-out is very narrow. If my report is negative in the absence of any movement on the part of Iran then the Security Council will work for more sanctions. That would mean a further escalation that will become more and more difficult to scale back.

Interview conducted by Georg Mascolo.

Der Aufstieg Chinas: Regionale und globale Machtverschiebungen

Der Aufstieg Chinas führt zu regionalen und globalen Machtverschiebungen. Das Zentrum für Sicherheitsstudien der ETH Zürich beleuchtet die Hintergründe.

CSS Bericht: .pdf 3 Seiten / Deutsch

Chinas rise causes regional and global restructuring of spheres of influence. The Centre for Security Studies at the Federal Technological Institute of Zurich examines the background:

CSS Report: .pdf 3 pages / German

Gute Dienste, Work in Progress

Geschätzte Berner Geheimdiplomatie

Die Geheimgespräche zwischen Israel und Syrien haben jüngst für Schlagzeilen gesorgt. Erstmals spricht jetzt ein in die Verhandlungen involvierter israelischer Teilnehmer über die Rolle der Schweiz - und lobt sie in höchsten Tönen.


4. Februar 2007, NZZ am Sonntag
Geschätzte Berner Geheimdiplomatie

Die Geheimgespräche zwischen Israel und Syrien haben jüngst für Schlagzeilen gesorgt. Erstmals spricht jetzt ein in die Verhandlungen involvierter israelischer Teilnehmer über die Rolle der Schweiz - und lobt sie in höchsten Tönen.

Silke Mertins, Jerusalem

Die Schweiz hat sich so gute Beziehungen im Nahen Osten erarbeitet, dass sie nach Einschätzung des israelischen Unterhändlers Alon Liel inzwischen für syrisch-israelische Friedensgespräche unverzichtbar geworden ist. «Die Schweiz nimmt eine Schlüsselrolle ein, wenn es um den Zugang zum syrischen Präsidenten Bachar al-Asad geht», sagt Liel. Die «hochprofessionellen» Berner Diplomaten hätten «das volle Vertrauen der syrischen Regierung», so der ehemalige Generaldirektor des israelischen Aussenministeriums. «Sie können Dinge tun, die andere westliche Regierungen nicht tun können. Sie haben ständigen Kontakt zu Damaskus, ein sehr enges Verhältnis.»

Liel hat diese Erkenntnisse aus erster Hand gewonnen. Er führte auf israelischer Seite die unter Vermittlung und Beteiligung der Schweiz zustande gekommenen Geheimgespräche mit Syrien, deren Bekanntwerden vor zwei Wochen international für Schlagzeilen gesorgt hat. Die Delegationen aus den beiden verfeindeten Staaten haben sich dabei auf eine Lösung geeinigt, die die Rückgabe des Golan und eine politische Kehrtwende Syriens einschliesst. Der Schönheitsfehler des sensationellen Deals: Weder von israelischer noch von syrischer Seite nahm ein offizieller Vertreter teil. Liel hat zwar 30 Jahre im Aussenministerium gedient, doch seit 2001 engagiert er sich als Privatmann für Verhandlungslösungen.

Er selbst brachte die Schweiz ins Spiel, nachdem die Gespräche unter türkischer Vermittlung - die Türkei hatte den Kontakt auf syrischen Wunsch hergestellt - neun Monate lang auf der Stelle traten. «Die Türken bestanden darauf, dass ein offizieller Vertreter Israels teilnimmt», erzählt Liel. Vergeblich. «So wendete ich mich schliesslich an die Schweizer.»
Bundesrat traumatisiert

Die Regierung in Bern, die bis heute eine Vermittlungsrolle nur vage bestätigt hat, verhielt sich zunächst skeptisch. «Sie war noch von der Genfer Friedensinitiative traumatisiert», so Liel. Denn die Schweiz hat auch die Verhandlungen zwischen israelischen Linken und moderaten Palästinensern, die sogenannte Genfer Initiative, moderiert und teilweise auch finanziert. Sie sollte Ende 2003 den damaligen Ministerpräsidenten Ariel Sharon widerlegen, der behauptete, es gebe auf palästinensischer Seite keinen Partner für den Frieden. Der Schuss ging jedoch nach hinten los. Sharon reagierte säuerlich auf die mit grossem Medienrummel veröffentlichte Einigung. Er weigerte sich zunächst sogar, Schweizer Politiker zu empfangen.

Einen solchen Konflikt wollte die Schweiz nicht erneut provozieren und bestand dieses Mal darauf, dass die israelische Regierung ständig im Bild war über das, was zwei Jahre lang im Berner «Hotel Bellevue» besprochen wurde. Unter anderem auch deshalb waren die Schweizer immer mit bis zu fünf Diplomaten dabei, wenn Syrer und Israeli sich trafen.

Offiziell lehnt Israel derartige Gespräche entschieden ab. Zwischen dem israelischen Militär- und dem Auslandsgeheimdienst ist sogar ein Streit darüber entbrannt, wie ernst zu nehmen die syrischen Verhandlungsangebote sind. Doch namhafte Politiker, darunter auch James Baker, US-Aussenminister unter George Bush senior, sehen in einem Frieden mit Syrien eine Chance für den gesamten Nahen Osten. Denn längst geht es nicht mehr nur um Israel und Syrien. Inzwischen sind mit Irak, Libanon und Iran weitere Konflikte hinzugekommen, in denen das Regime in Damaskus eine nicht unerhebliche Rolle spielt. «Wenn es uns gelingt, Syrien aus dem islamistischen Lager herauszubrechen, ist das weitaus wichtiger als nur der Frieden mit Israel», sagt Liel deshalb. Folglich ist der Schweizer Draht nach Damaskus nicht nur für Israel bedeutend. Auch die Amerikaner, die Syrien nach wie vor als Teil der «Achse des Bösen» definieren, dürften aufhorchen.
Gemeinsam picknicken

Konkret sind für Israel aber auch die Einzelheiten des Abkommens interessant. Israel würde danach die syrische Souveränität über die 1967 eroberten Golanhöhen anerkennen, aber erst abziehen, wenn über einen Zeitraum von rund 15 Jahren deutlich geworden ist, dass Damaskus sich aussenpolitisch wirklich umorientiert hat. Im Gegenzug würde Syrien die Unterstützung der Hamas und des Hizbullah beenden.

«Die Vereinbarung enthält sehr kreative Ideen, wie etwa den Naturpark», sagt Akiva Eldar, Autor der Tageszeitung «Haaretz», an die man das Geheimabkommen zwischen Israel und Syrien hat durchsickern lassen. Auf dem grössten Teil des Golans soll ein Naturpark entstehen, der für Syrer wie für Israeli zugänglich sein soll. Israeli hätten weiter Zugang zu einem Areal, das als Urlaubsgebiet für viele nicht mehr wegzudenken ist. Es wäre für alle zugänglich ohne Visum, so dass Syrer und Israeli «vielleicht sogar einmal zusammen picknicken werden».